ForumGarden

Lady Thatcher is recovering in hospital after a minor operation. The former prime minister's spokeswoman said Baroness Thatcher was doing "absolutely fine".

BBC News - Margaret Thatcher recovering from bladder operation



I congratulate her, I hope to read dozens more such reports over the next two or three decades. Hang in there ma'am.

Thatcher the Destroyer.

Ok, I grant the Unions needed breaking: they were overpowerful and power-mad. But pretty much everything else was disastrous - all the selling off of services, housing and playing fields? The introductions of unfettered markets into unsuitable environments like water and power where the taxpayer STILL pays for the infrastructure improvements for the benefit of private comapny shareholders?

The Falklands crisis ony happened because of cuts on the armed forces imposed by her government. Sickening she gets the credit for a decisive response when it was her incompetent shortsightedness which allowed the crisis in the first place.

"There is no such thing as society." A justification for greed and corruption for a generation, the fruit of whose labours we've seen in banking crises, rogue traders, and amoral journalists and newspaper owners.

I won't mourn.

At the end of the day, she's a human being and at the end of the day, she did a job.

Clodhopper;1413914 wrote: I won't mourn.
She hasn't suffered anywhere near enough yet to pay for the harm she caused.

Just to be picky.... the OP Is erroneous.... It's not Lady Thatcher....... It's Baroness Thatcher

oscar;1413940 wrote: Just to be picky.... the OP Is erroneous.... It's not Lady Thatcher....... It's Baroness Thatcher


I'll thank you to leave the pedantic antics to those who are used to such. Pedantry is Tyr's department. It says so in the FG Terms and Conditions.

We all have a job to do here and yours is to read the Daily Mail every day and report. There's no one else here who has the ability to do that (apart from PantoAndy, maybe)

Snowfire;1413948 wrote: I'll thank you to leave the pedantic antics to those who are used to such. Pedantry is Tyr's department. It says so in the FG Terms and Conditions.

We all have a job to do here and yours is to read the Daily Mail every day and report. There's no one else here who has the ability to do that (apart from PantoAndy, maybe)


I can't read The Daily Mail today, I'm stuffing Vol-u-Vonts .

It's Andy's job to report bac from The Sun newspaper on behalf of Britain's Chav's.

Ah, tis yourself, spot-that-was. I missed the irony first time round

I wish her well for I am not the same kind of uncaring cold-hearted person that she is. She's unemployed and an OAP in her world she is useless and a drain on resources bet she's glad she doesn't have to rely on the welfare state she tried to destroy.

I just saw the posturing over styles of address... Baron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn the case of women who hold baronies in their own right, they can be referred to as Baroness [X] as well as Lady [X].

When is that Bitch going to DIE??????????? All the party decoes and balloons are ready. Counting down the days

Our thoughts and prayers stand with anyone strong enough to stick to their convictions when in a leadership position.

She is one of those.

Not, I think, when their convictions are so resoundingly destructive and antisocial.

Kind of hateful or narrow minded because her views are different? Apparently tolerance and disagreement are really one-sided hate in your eyes?

You write "She hasn't suffered anywhere near enough yet to pay for the harm she caused." I wonder how you feel about Stalin, Castro, Che, Ho, Hitler, or Mao considering the millions they murdered. Never-mind, I am almost certain of your answer.

Have a nice day.

halfway;1414423 wrote: Kind of hateful or narrow minded because her views are different? Apparently tolerance and disagreement are really one-sided hate in your eyes?

You write "She hasn't suffered anywhere near enough yet to pay for the harm she caused." I wonder how you feel about Stalin, Castro, Che, Ho, Hitler, or Mao considering the millions they murdered. Never-mind, I am almost certain of your answer.

Have a nice day.


Well no, actually, I wrote "I congratulate her, I hope to read dozens more such reports over the next two or three decades. Hang in there ma'am" which is somewhat different.

I like people with views which differ from mine, it makes for more interesting conversation. Margaret Thatcher is a different fish, she deliberately wrecked the social infrastructure of Britain repeatedly and with intent. She qualifies as a serial rapist, not a politician.

So you disagree with her views and now you call her a "serial rapist"?

So.....you say;

"she deliberately wrecked the social infrastructure of Britain repeatedly and with intent. She qualifies as a serial rapist, not a politician. "

"She hasn't suffered anywhere near enough yet to pay for the harm she caused."

"Not, I think, when their convictions are so resoundingly destructive and antisocial."

You need anger and hatred help. A little diversity training may go a long way with you.

Good day.

It's simple justice. She has a lot of suffering to get through before she's allowed any peace. Another couple of decades worth at least. I'll be very sad to hear of her death.

As for anger or hatred, neither really apply. Despite or revulsion comes closest.

I wonder how you feel about Stalin, Castro, Che, Ho, Hitler, or Mao considering the millions they murdered. Do "our thoughts and prayers stand with anyone strong enough to stick to their convictions when in a leadership position" in their cases, or is that different somehow.

Thatcher will go down In history unlike some other faceless morons who'll be forgotten the moment the wake Is over.

Yes, some of her policies were destructive but worldwide she commanded a respect from world leaders like no other.

Thatcher was the one and I suspect the only one who had the balls to tell the IRA ' we don't do deals with terrorists'. Never has this country had a leader who showed such strength and resolution.

Those who wish to see her suffer need to let the anger go. Discuss her disastrous policies by all means but wishing her suffering ??? Makes me wonder about some people.

halfway;1414425 wrote: So you disagree with her views and now you call her a "serial rapist"?

So.....you say;

"she deliberately wrecked the social infrastructure of Britain repeatedly and with intent. She qualifies as a serial rapist, not a politician. "

"She hasn't suffered anywhere near enough yet to pay for the harm she caused."

"Not, I think, when their convictions are so resoundingly destructive and antisocial."

You need anger and hatred help. A little diversity training may go a long way with you.

Good day.


Great post.

Who is this relatively new poster halfway (with a small H) who, in fact goes all the way ?

I have a love hate view of our Maggie.

I despised most of her policies, but have an undieing admiration for her resolve and determination.

I don't believe she "wrecked the social infrastructure repeatedly and with intent" maliciously, if that is what she did.

I wish there was a politician around today with the right answers and the same amount of balls that she had.

Balls are fine, conviction is fine. Dividing the wealth of the nation predominantly into the hands of the upper ten percent is not fine. Nobody can become rich in isolation, wealth is produced by societal interaction. Depriving the bottom half from any likelihood of a stable financial footing in order to distribute excessive loads-a-cash among a crowd of Hooray Henry champagne-swilling gutter-filth is not my notion of statesmanlike wisdom.

The irony is, she was a grocers daughter who made good.

Are you saying she altered this country so much, no grocer's daughter will ever make it good again ?

Perhaps some would prefer we pandered to Ira terrorists, the Argentinian's and the Russians? No other Stateswoman could or would have handled such so admirably and with such resolution.

How Margaret Thatcher Helped to End the Cold War

I can only laugh at those who think Thatcher put the hands of the country Into the wealthy.

Margaret Thatcher gave the poorest In the country a way to buy their own homes and the opportunity to buy shares.

Her 1988 Royal Society Speech put environmentalism and global warming on the political agenda for the very first time.

Her Scarman Enquiry began for the first time to address Britain’s disaffected Inner city youth.

Some people are blinded by hatred and forget what she actually did.

Bruv;1414442 wrote: Are you saying she altered this country so much, no grocer's daughter will ever make it good again ?
This is the trick-question that people think is meaningful and it's nothing of the sort. Anyone with drive and intelligence and connections stands a good chance of getting out of the bottom financial half of society if they choose to, if that's what you mean by making good. Most people in the bottom financial half of society stand little chance of doing so, if they have no connections, by reason of lacking the drive despite the intelligence, or lacking the intelligence despite the drive, or lacking both. I'm not saying it can't be done - fortune and serendipity play a part - but the likelihood is that most won't escape their financial heritage. Those born with connections may well make good despite a lack of either drive or intelligence, that's fairly apparent.

What should be asked is whether the ability to generate lots of money by reason of connections, or of drive and ability, is a good reason to have lots of money to spend. I see the link as trivial and the two ideas only superficially associated. Social justice requires several bare essentials, that nobody should be without an adequate roof over their head or adequate food in their stomach or adequate available education unless they actively reject them. Social justice also requires the abolition of the poverty trap. If these minima require an adjustment to our taxation system then fine, let's adjust it. The assets and income being taxed couldn't exist without the society in which they've been acquired, they belong to society to distribute.

What the grocer's daughter did, by contrast, resulted in a lower quality of life for millions for decades. It denied dignity to people whose boots she wasn't worthy to lace up. Repellant doesn't even start to describe her accomplishments.

I am not clever or devious enough to set trick questions.

As I have said I despised much of her policies, I don't believe she did anything maliciously, her ideology was at fault.

You are obviously the opposite end of the political spectrum to her with just as ideologically flawed bias, but I bet you would be happy to find a politician with your leanings with as much ooomph as the iron lady

oscar;1414453 wrote: I can only laugh at those who think Thatcher put the hands of the country Into the wealthy.

Margaret Thatcher gave the poorest In the country a way to buy their own homes and the opportunity to buy shares.

Her 1988 Royal Society Speech put environmentalism and global warming on the political agenda for the very first time.

Her Scarman Enquiry began for the first time to address Britain’s disaffected Inner city youth.

Some people are blinded by hatred and forget what she actually did.


Let me see now she took all the nationalised industries, including things like BT, gas and water supplies none of which had been built or developed by private industry in the first place (you did kniow and understand that fact didn't you?) let some ordinary people have the opportunity to buy some shares in something they actually already owned and sold the bulk of them to private companies and individuals so that now all the profits go abroad and in to the hand s of a few wealthy shareholders and investment funds and you think that was an achievement to be proud off? I laugh at people who think getting shares in something you owned already was an improvement and fall off the chair in hysterics when they say they are happy to contribute to the profits if foreign owned companies. We now pay more in subsidies to the rail companies than we ever did when they were nationalised how I laugh at those who think that a great improvement.

People could already buy their own homes most didn't because they didn't earn enough. she made it easier to do so by allowing the banks and building societies do lend without demanding large deposits - (she did the same with finance companies, used to be you needed 20% deposit to buy a car on finance) but all she did was allow councils to sell off the best of their social housing stock without any thought for the needs of the future. You need to look at why britain had social housing in the first place to understand what was wrong with that. Now yet again we have a situation where people are forced to pay extortionate rents to private landlords making it impossible for anyone to save up a big enough deposit to get themselves on the housing ladder.

Maggie did things for dogmatic political reasons that had nothing to do with what was best for the country. It is even good capitalism, some things are so important the state has to control them - infrastructure and education and health being three of them. Economically she was a fascist.

Can you think of anything that she did has made things better for everybody? Happ new year by the way.

gmc;1414545 wrote: Let me see now she took all the nationalised industries, including things like BT, gas and water supplies none of which had been built or developed by private industry in the first place (you did kniow and understand that fact didn't you?) let some ordinary people have the opportunity to buy some shares in something they actually already owned and sold the bulk of them to private companies and individuals so that now all the profits go abroad and in to the hand s of a few wealthy shareholders and investment funds and you think that was an achievement to be proud off? I laugh at people who think getting shares in something you owned already was an improvement and fall off the chair in hysterics when they say they are happy to contribute to the profits if foreign owned companies. We now pay more in subsidies to the rail companies than we ever did when they were nationalised how I laugh at those who think that a great improvement.

People could already buy their own homes most didn't because they didn't earn enough. she made it easier to do so by allowing the banks and building societies do lend without demanding large deposits - (she did the same with finance companies, used to be you needed 20% deposit to buy a car on finance) but all she did was allow councils to sell off the best of their social housing stock without any thought for the needs of the future. You need to look at why britain had social housing in the first place to understand what was wrong with that. Now yet again we have a situation where people are forced to pay extortionate rents to private landlords making it impossible for anyone to save up a big enough deposit to get themselves on the housing ladder.

Maggie did things for dogmatic political reasons that had nothing to do with what was best for the country. It is even good capitalism, some things are so important the state has to control them - infrastructure and education and health being three of them. Economically she was a fascist.

Can you think of anything that she did has made things better for everybody? Happ new year by the way. Don't patronise me you condescending Jockstrap...

As for the council houses... You're forgetting the massive discounts on the houses, up to 40% depending on how long the tenant had lived there. What ever she did by allowing banks and building societies to lend without deposits, you can't take away the fact that thousands of people with poor credit got no deposit mortgages at a massive discount and allowed them to buy their homes...

Many applaud that but there has been long term destructiveness to the housing market. Many who bought their council homes at the full 40% discount on the market value re-sold within the 5 year statuary period making enough profit to buy a bigger house and obtain a bigger mortgage. The volume of houses sold were never fully replaced and still haven't been leaving a dire shortage of affordable housing for lower earners.... In my area, the average waiting list for a council property Is 4 years. They have papered over the cracks by new builds offering up a quota of new houses to the Council for rent but many of these new builds are cutting Into Greenbelt which I am deeply opposed to...

I'm not saying Thatcher's policies were good or bad for the country but I just think post governments have had enough years to right many of the wrongs and they haven't. Rather than call for her suffering, channel the anger at post governments for sitting on their arsses.

Or don't you remember the 70's ? You may not have liked her reforms but Thatcher's Economic Policies helped steer the country away from Bankruptcy and and Economic Meltdown. In 1979 the streets were piled high with uncollected rubbish and the dead lay unburied. Union leaders were holding the country to ransom, In particular British Leyland and no-one wanted to Invest In Britain because of the Unions. She kept tight fiscal reigns bringing Inflation under control after the massive Inflation of the 1970's.

Happy New Year by the way Auld Yin.

posted by oscar

As for the council houses... You're forgetting the massive discounts on the houses, up to 40% depending on how long the tenant had lived there. What ever she did by allowing banks and building societies to lend without deposits, you can't take away the fact that thousands of people with poor credit got no deposit mortgages at a massive discount and allowed them to buy their homes...

Many applaud that but there has been long term destructiveness to the housing market. Many who bought their council homes at the full 40% discount on the market value re-sold within the 5 year statuary period making enough profit to buy a bigger house and obtain a bigger mortgage. The volume of houses sold were never fully replaced and still haven't been leaving a dire shortage of affordable housing for lower earners.... In my area, the average waiting list for a council property Is 4 years. They have papered over the cracks by new builds offering up a quota of new houses to the Council for rent but many of these new builds are cutting Into Greenbelt which I am deeply opposed to...


Margaret Thatcher gave the poorest In the country a way to buy their own homes and the opportunity to buy shares.


Make up your mond will you. Either you approve of the poorest being allowed the chance to buy their council house or you think it was a bad idea you can't have ot both ways.

Yes I do remember the 70's. What saved thatcher was the inward investment brought about by our joining the eec - all those nissan and toyota and hitachi factories being built she claimed the credit for. It was the European regional fund in the north east of england and Scotland that and infrastructure investment it brought about that did more to regenerate those areas destroyed by her policies than anything she did. Not forgetting of course the north sea oil revenues that were kicking in that she used to finance all the tax cuts instead of investing in the country. If you want to bring down inflation go for mass unemployment - works every time.

In wasn't patronising you you numpty I was asking you if you were aware of the history of the water and gas and telecoms industry in this country. Most right wingers are not - believing that somehow private industry built everything when the reality is actually very different. I would never patronise a member of the BNP it would be like calling a hamster names, they're too dumb to notice. it's more fun being insulting.

gmc;1414564 wrote: posted by oscar





Make up your mond will you. Either you approve of the poorest being allowed the chance to buy their council house or you think it was a bad idea you can't have ot both ways.

Yes I do remember the 70's. What saved thatcher was the inward investment brought about by our joining the eec - all those nissan and toyota and hitachi factories being built she claimed the credit for. It was the European regional fund in the north east of england and Scotland that and infrastructure investment it brought about that did more to regenerate those areas destroyed by her policies than anything she did. Not forgetting of course the north sea oil revenues that were kicking in that she used to finance all the tax cuts instead of investing in the country. If you want to bring down inflation go for mass unemployment - works every time.

In wasn't patronising you you numpty I was asking you if you were aware of the history of the water and gas and telecoms industry in this country. Most right wingers are not - believing that somehow private industry built everything when the reality is actually very different. I would never patronise a member of the BNP it would be like calling a hamster names, they're too dumb to notice. it's more fun being insulting.


Then I shall clarify as I know trying to explain anything to a Scot dreaming of Independence Is a little like explaining to a Goldfish In a bowl that he's been swimming round in circles.

Initially, the sale of council houses at discount and no deposit mortgages helped the property market after the 70's and got money moving again. In some area's It was partially responsible for self-cleaning some sink estates when new owners started taking a pride In their homes.... not all... some. That was the Immediate benefits but I don't believe the long term effects were ever thought through and especially the long lasting effect of shortages of affordable housing.

Unbelievably but pretty par for the course of the stupidity of the Coalition, Cameron announced a revival of the policy earlier this year. He said 2 million tenants would be given the right to buy with discounts of up to £75,000.

Right-to-buy council house policy fails to find many takers | Society | The Guardian

By all accounts, It's been a failure.

I don't know the theory behind selling off social housing, or how it was to benefit anyone.

It has lost lots of housing to councils, put many deep into debt.

Never understood the need to own your own house.

The right to own property is a fundamental core of liberty. The ownership of property can be a basis for wealth.

halfway;1414620 wrote: The right to own property is a fundamental core of liberty. The ownership of property can be a basis for wealth.


You'd list that as a fundamental right, but not having an adequate roof over your head?

How disgracefully American of you.

halfway;1414620 wrote: The right to own property is a fundamental core of liberty. The ownership of property can be a basis for wealth.


How ?

But anyway.......subsidised property ownership?

Bruv;1414617 wrote: I don't know the theory behind selling off social housing, or how it was to benefit anyone.

It has lost lots of housing to councils, put many deep into debt.

Never understood the need to own your own house.


It means you can't be turfed out if you lose the means to pay the rent. Paying rent to a private landlord merely makes them richer buy your own and your costs eventually cease altogether and you have an asset you own. All property is theft. In the UK land ownership is derived through the monarchy when the Normans arrived they took everything and divvied it up amongst themselves, once free farmers become serfs on their own land. the stronger have always taken from the weak all law is a means of controlling the power of the powerful. The clever bit was they persuaded us all they were entitled to keep it. Common land was enclosed and taken by the rich and powerful for their own benefit it's been going on for centuries.

Whoever owns the land and it's resources rules. Who decided you can't walk on a beach in england without permission from the landlord? The coal under your feet who decided it should belong to those wealthy enough to exploit it and the workers that dug it out? Same with the oil, who owns the right to that wealth and why should it be given away to a foreign offshore conglomerate. In south America the US deposed governments that wanted to nationalise the oil or mining industry, is iran the west overthrew a democratically elected government and returned the shah to, power because the democratically elected government thought the profits should be used to benefit the people.

In england you have freehold and leasehold, freehold derives from when the monarch has said you can hold that without owing duties to a feudal superior leasehold means you have a right to use the land but it isn't yours. In Scotland there was only feuhold in theory if I don't pay feudal dues my land is forfeit in practice I do own it but feudal tenure was only abolished in 2000. previously I could buy out the feuholder. The y call it simple tenure now so as nopt to keep reminding people of the great theft perpetrated on us all.

You might not understand the need to own your own house I don't understand why you would want to always be tipping your hat to your landlord and why the money you spend on rent could not be used more effectively for your own benefit. Maybe you have never been homeless or unemployed and had the reality of being helpless in the face of circumstances driven home. Every time I hear a tory complaining about how the unemployed simply don't want to work I want to hit them with clubs.

gmc;1414630 wrote:

You might not understand the need to own your own house I don't understand why you would want to always be tipping your hat to your landlord and why the money you spend on rent could not be used more effectively for your own benefit. Maybe you have never been homeless or unemployed and had the reality of being helpless in the face of circumstances driven home. Every time I hear a tory complaining about how the unemployed simply don't want to work I want to hit them with clubs.


Gawd luvva duck and I thought you was a socialist ?

The whole idea behind council owned and rented property is that the community owns it and it is maintained and rented on it's behalf.

The ongoing finance of the housing stock is self maintaining no Landlords clean up, no financial institutions hold your property hostage until it's paid for, no great profits are made from property ownership.

I do own my own property, but only because your mate Maggie sold off all the council property and made buying as cheap as renting

halfway;1414620 wrote: The right to own property is a fundamental core of liberty. The ownership of property can be a basis for wealth.


First of all halfway, welcome to the forum. Please take no heed of Tyr's comments re: America and It's people for he Is not a representative of the many members here. We British members welcome your views on UK affairs as It's gives us all a wider perspective of the subject. Please continue to post and engage with us. Ignore the Insults traded between myself and gmc as this Is quite par for the course with what we call British banter and It's perfectly normal for the British to be superior over the Scots. :wah:

In answer to Bruv's question.... owning your own home gives you stability and security. When Thatcher Introduced the right to buy policy, the standard of home regulations were not In place and were not Introduced until the Gordon Brown government, meaning that although they were council owned, some conditions were pretty dire for tenants.

Ironically, It's Thatcher to this day that bears the brunt of the blame for smashing the unions but most forget that It was former Labour governments who began the process In the 1970's. It certainly did not start with the Tory victory of 1979 but earlier In 1974 under Labour with Wilson and Callaghan. It started with the actions of key militant trade unionists and tt carried out with the blessings of employers. Not only right wingers but also left wingers such as Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon, the left-wing leaders of the TGWU and the AUEW.

It was started as way back as the 60's with engineering workers, dockers, printers and miners

oscar;1414640 wrote:

In answer to Bruv's question.... owning your own home gives you stability and security.


What is more secure than having a pool of publicly owned housing that are available depending on your situation. Starter homes for single and newly married, changed for a larger home in a different location for employment and when the family grows, downsizing when the kids flee the nest.

Councils manage the stock and build as and when is required from the low rental income, compared to mortgage loans and all the profiteering that goes on in the house purchasing chain.

The dwellings are always owned and managed, by the people for the people, in the hands of local authorities, giving flexible and affordable housing. It works well for Health care, it should work well for all and any public utility, Gas Electric Railways and Water.

gmc;1414630 wrote: It means you can't be turfed out if you lose the means to pay the rent. Paying rent to a private landlord merely makes them richer buy your own and your costs eventually cease altogether and you have an asset you own. All property is theft. In the UK land ownership is derived through the monarchy when the Normans arrived they took everything and divvied it up amongst themselves, once free farmers become serfs on their own land. the stronger have always taken from the weak all law is a means of controlling the power of the powerful. The clever bit was they persuaded us all they were entitled to keep it. Common land was enclosed and taken by the rich and powerful for their own benefit it's been going on for centuries.

Whoever owns the land and it's resources rules. Who decided you can't walk on a beach in england without permission from the landlord? The coal under your feet who decided it should belong to those wealthy enough to exploit it and the workers that dug it out? Same with the oil, who owns the right to that wealth and why should it be given away to a foreign offshore conglomerate. In south America the US deposed governments that wanted to nationalise the oil or mining industry, is iran the west overthrew a democratically elected government and returned the shah to, power because the democratically elected government thought the profits should be used to benefit the people.

In england you have freehold and leasehold, freehold derives from when the monarch has said you can hold that without owing duties to a feudal superior leasehold means you have a right to use the land but it isn't yours. In Scotland there was only feuhold in theory if I don't pay feudal dues my land is forfeit in practice I do own it but feudal tenure was only abolished in 2000. previously I could buy out the feuholder. The y call it simple tenure now so as nopt to keep reminding people of the great theft perpetrated on us all.

You might not understand the need to own your own house I don't understand why you would want to always be tipping your hat to your landlord and why the money you spend on rent could not be used more effectively for your own benefit. Maybe you have never been homeless or unemployed and had the reality of being helpless in the face of circumstances driven home. Every time I hear a tory complaining about how the unemployed simply don't want to work I want to hit them with clubs.


Home "ownership" means that the banks turf you out if you lose the means to pay the mortgage instead.

As far as I can see, the only time that you were safe was when you were paying rent to the council because they had an obligation to keep a roof over your head. (or when you've survived the quarter century most of us need to clear the mortgage - and that's after moving into the big family home, not after buying the two up two down most of us started with).

Bruv;1414649 wrote: What is more secure than having a pool of publicly owned housing that are available depending on your situation. Starter homes for single and newly married, changed for a larger home in a different location for employment and when the family grows, downsizing when the kids flee the nest.

Councils manage the stock and build as and when is required from the low rental income, compared to mortgage loans and all the profiteering that goes on in the house purchasing chain.

The dwellings are always owned and managed, by the people for the people, in the hands of local authorities, giving flexible and affordable housing. It works well for Health care, it should work well for all and any public utility, Gas Electric Railways and Water.


Because the local authorities are no different from private landlords. If you faced the scenario where you had a mortgage on your home and some reasonable equity, the bank or lender can negotiate an Interest only payment should you lose your job. You can't do that with the authorities. If you find yourself unemployed but your partner has Income coming In, DSS payments will not cover all your rent, only part of It.

When I was serving on South Glou housing, If a tenant missed two weeks rent, they were given notice that they faced eviction. With such a shortage of housing and waiting lists of up to four years for a home, they do not let any tenant amass rent arrears and they get them out very, very quickly. In fact, you're better of with a mortgage because In many respects you can barter with the lender during hard times with the exception of some of the fixed rate mortgages.

Bryn Mawr;1414650 wrote: Home "ownership" means that the banks turf you out if you lose the means to pay the mortgage instead.

As far as I can see, the only time that you were safe was when you were paying rent to the council because they had an obligation to keep a roof over your head. (or when you've survived the quarter century most of us need to clear the mortgage - and that's after moving into the big family home, not after buying the two up two down most of us started with). That Is no longer true as such Bryn... they will evict you very very quickly If you miss the rent. They have absolutely no onus now to re-house you.

Think about It.... they have waiting lists of 4 years of people wanting a council home and In a position to pay the rent. Why should they lose money down the drain keeping tenants In who can't or won't pay their rent? The authorities are a going concern the same as private landlords.If you're evicted for non payment of rent, It's the worst possible outcome because If you have small children, the best you'll be offered Is a bed and breakfast... they certainly will not give you another house.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/h ... use_me.htm

oscar;1414657 wrote: That Is no longer true as such Bryn... they will evict you very very quickly If you miss the rent. They have absolutely no onus now to re-house you.

Think about It.... they have waiting lists of 4 years of people wanting a council home and In a position to pay the rent. Why should they lose money down the drain keeping tenants In who can't or won't pay their rent? The authorities are a going concern the same as private landlords.If you're evicted for non payment of rent, It's the worst possible outcome because If you have small children, the best you'll be offered Is a bed and breakfast... they certainly will not give you another house.


That is why I phrased it in the past tense.

Bryn Mawr;1414659 wrote: That is why I phrased it in the past tense. Then I can only beg your pardon Bryn.

Councils are pretty ruthless these days with eviction for rent arrears.

So why did they sell off all our houses ?

You are talking about the situation NOW, after all the public stock of houses was sold to private individuals at discounted rates.

If..... (one of the biggest words in the English language) that housing stock had remained in public hands, and the cut rate return for their sale had been allowed to be put back into providing housing by the councils.............perhaps we would not have the situation and attitude to social housing we have now, and enough decent priced housing to go around, rather than wealth gravitating to wealthy.

All those council house evictions being housed in privately owned profiteering landlord hotels/bed and breakfast funded from the public kitty.

Bruv;1414662 wrote: So why did they sell off all our houses ?

You are talking about the situation NOW, after all the public stock of houses was sold to private individuals at discounted rates.

If..... (one of the biggest words in the English language) that housing stock had remained in public hands, and the cut rate return for their sale had been allowed to be put back into providing housing by the councils.............perhaps we would not have the situation and attitude to social housing we have now, and enough decent priced housing to go around, rather than wealth gravitating to wealthy.

All those council house evictions being housed in privately owned profiteering landlord hotels/bed and breakfast funded from the public kitty.
Many reasons but at the time of Thatcher's right to buy policy and it's boom In the early 80's, the Unions had a stranglehold on the country, no-one was Investing In Britain, the banks weren't lending, the property market was stagnant and money wasn't moving. Compare her scheme In 1979 and Cameron's proposal today to revive the scheme.... notice any similarities ? The country today is pretty much In the same fiscal turn as It was after Labour governments In the 70's.

Selling of council houses actually Is a short sharp fix to get the property market moving and banks lending. It Initially gives the authorities the Income to build new homes for the evr growing demand... unfortunately It's counter productive because the demand Is greater than the supply.

Bruv;1414662 wrote: So why did they sell off all our houses ?


Harold Macmillan rather disgustedly gave a name to it.His precise quote, at a dinner of the Tory Reform Group at the Royal Overseas League on 8 November 1985, was on the subject of the sale of assets commonplace among individuals or states when they encountered financial difficulties: 'First of all the Georgian silver goes. And then all that nice furniture that used to be in the salon. Then the Canalettos go.' Profitable parts of the steel industry and the railways had been privatised, along with British Telecom: 'They were like two Rembrandts still left.'

Stockton's speech was much commented on, and a few days later he made a speech in the House of Lords, referring to it:

When I ventured the other day to criticise the system I was, I am afraid, misunderstood. As a Conservative, I am naturally in favour of returning into private ownership and private management all those means of production and distribution which are now controlled by state capitalism. I am sure they will be more efficient. What I ventured to question was the using of these huge sums as if they were income.That's what the Thatcher government did, both with the sale of council houses and with the North Sea bonanza, the Calling of Sid and the piecemeal asset-stripping of the railways and the electricity and water utilities. Treated the proceeds as income and went on a totally uncalled for tax-cutting spree for the wealthier half to the utter detriment of the country as a whole.

So..........a bit like selling your kidneys ?

Bruv;1414667 wrote: So..........a bit like selling your kidneys ?


On the contrary, it was far more like selling your destitute brother's kidney in order to finance your own bloated lifestyle. I used to own the water companies in common with every other person in Great Britain. Now I play a grotesquely inflated bill to a French management in order that they can pass my money on to carpetbagger shareholders who have done absolutely nothing whatever to improve the utilities they were handed at deep discounts by Maggie Maggie Maggie solely to inflate the wealth of the wealthy.

Or alternatively, we could still have the country held to ransom by the unions, stagnant property market, negative equity, banks not lending, record numbers of unemployed, no outside Investment, the dead unburied, three day working weeks, blackouts, power failures, rotting rubbish and rats piled high In the streets, sewers and drains over-flowing In the streets, bread and milk queues, minimum wage for those lucky enough to be In employment. Oh and don't forget the terrorists blowing up children and attempting to hold our government to ransom.

Baroness Thatcher wherever you are... Happy New Year Maam and long may you thrive.