Was Thatcher's 'property owning democracy' a myth?

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

It seemed to many people that Mrs T wanted to promote home ownership as its a form of debt which makes workers less likely to strike or join labour organisations, and become easier to be pushed around by bosses.

I approve of home-ownership, and have a mortgage for my house which is worth a lot more than we paid for it. Can't help notice that the decline in organised labour has coincided with the increase in home-ownership.

When I was a kid, debt was seen as a thing of shame, and people waited till they had substantial deposits (often 40%) before they'd try to buy. That had to be got rid of, and it was.

since home ownership is declining then presumably we are seeing an increase in organised labour?

I've not noticed that.

I don't know when you were a kid but 40% deposits were not common in the 70s and onwards

stator

SailorSam wrote: »

I grew up on a Council Estate, my Mum bought our house when i was a teenager for £7k and sold it about 12/15yrs later for £20k, and that got us out of the Council Estate inro a nicer house. Probably without Maggie my Mum would still have been paying rent for the same house many years later.
Thank you Mrs T.

How nice for her. Shame about the shortage of council accomodation though.

Loughton_Monkey

Even prior to Thatcher's big council house sale, home ownership was well into 60%+. The 'few' council houses sold did not make a huge difference on things.

However, the typical buyers were middle aged because they had to have a long tenancy background. The council houses were dirt cheap and buyers made a huge profit.

Maybe, this period "educated" many, that people in the bottom 40%-ish could still buy a house by the time they were 40. In reality, this was (generally) not been possible before, and some years after, is generally not possible now.

This perhaps has led to a wider feeling of the 'right' to buy a house even though you are (a) young, (b) amongst the bottom 40% of wage earners, (c) single, or (d) paying through the nose to rent a good 'family' home. Or a mixture of these.

Houses have historically risen over and above inflation, and have historically fluctuated in value due to demand/supply issues.

Cars, on the other hand, have become cheaper, more reliable, and immune from any supply issues.

When buying a car, most of us look at what money we have. What we can/want to afford. Then we go and buy what we can with the money. A 5 year old Clio, or perhaps a new BMW. Either way we have the luxury that we are getting much more for our money than our fathers did. Sadly, however, they are depreciating assets.

For houses on the other hand, which are appreciating assets, I just wish some people would realise that the same applies - i.e. you have to look at what you can afford, and buy what you can. Or admit that you can't afford one at all (nothing wrong with that). Instead we get excuses such as (a) I'm priced out [yes! of the house you'd like], or (b) I'm waiting for prices to come down [dream on sucker], or worst still (c) I prefer to rent.

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

since home ownership is declining then presumably we are seeing an increase in organised labour?

I've not noticed that.

I don't know when you were a kid but 40% deposits were not common in the 70s and onwards

Not sure that would necessarily follow.

In the 60s in Scotland, saving money was seen as a priority, and renting was respectable.

the_flying_pig

SailorSam wrote: »

I grew up on a Council Estate, my Mum bought our house when i was a teenager for £7k and sold it about 12/15yrs later for £20k, and that got us out of the Council Estate inro a nicer house. Probably without Maggie my Mum would still have been paying rent for the same house many years later.
Thank you Mrs T.

er, bully for your mother, who i don't doubt is a nice lady, but, ultimately, that was a cut-price sale, wasn't it, of something worth [say] £10k for only £7k, in other words a giveaway of £3k. could that money have been better spent elsewhere? given the prices you mention we're presumably talking very early 80s, so £3k could have paid for [for example if it'd been in the NHS] a good few life-improving operations.

but of the two things that happened in the 80s, namely: (a) the selloff; & (b) deciding to stop building council housing, it feels to me like only the latter was a real game-changer.

why was that decision taken, to stop building? i suppose their were likely two justifications at the time:

(i) just to save [short term only, clearly, given the current size of the HB bill] money i suppose?; and
(ii) maybe a vague hope that council house building had been somehow crowding out private sector investment & that thsi would be able to pick up a decent amount of slack.

a spectacularly awful decision with hindsight.

zagubov

the_flying_pig wrote: »

but of the two things that happened in the 80s, namely: (a) the selloff; & (b) deciding to stop building council housing, it feels to me like only the latter was a real game-changer.

why was that decision taken, to stop building? i suppose their were likely two justifications at the time:

(i) just to save [short term only, clearly, given the current size of the HB bill] money i suppose?; and
(ii) maybe a vague hope that council house building had been somehow crowding out private sector investment & that thsi would be able to pick up a decent amount of slack.

a spectacularly awful decision with hindsight.

And not the only one like that.:(

michaels

the_flying_pig wrote: »

er, bully for your mother, who i don't doubt is a nice lady, but, ultimately, that was a cut-price sale, wasn't it, of something worth [say] £10k for only £7k, in other words a giveaway of £3k. could that money have been better spent elsewhere? given the prices you mention we're presumably talking very early 80s, so £3k could have paid for [for example if it'd been in the NHS] a good few life-improving operations.

but of the two things that happened in the 80s, namely: (a) the selloff; & (b) deciding to stop building council housing, it feels to me like only the latter was a real game-changer.

why was that decision taken, to stop building? i suppose their were likely two justifications at the time:

(i) just to save [short term only, clearly, given the current size of the HB bill] money i suppose?; and
(ii) maybe a vague hope that council house building had been somehow crowding out private sector investment & that this would be able to pick up a decent amount of slack.

a spectacularly awful decision with hindsight.

Not at all. If the OPs mum had not been offered the discount she would likely have carried on renting at below market rent for many years, the total cost of the rent subsidy being much higher than the cost of the discount.

the_flying_pig

michaels wrote: »

Not at all. If the OPs mum had not been offered the discount she would likely have carried on renting at below market rent for many years, the total cost of the rent subsidy being much higher than the cost of the discount.

Two things:

(1) I tried to make it obvious that I was only applying the "spectacularly awful" tag to the decision to stop building rather than the sale

(2) the cheap selloff was merely a 'poor' decision rather than 'awful'... If this mum was renting below the market level and could afford to buy something, better options than selling cheap would have included: (a) sell for full value; (b) ramp up the rent; (c) evict.

N1AK

cepheus wrote: »

High house prices, which owe much to policies promoted by Margaret Thatcher’s government, pervert the promises of Thatcherism. If you work hard and are thrifty, she said, you will be rewarded. Yet people who own property can make more money from sitting on it than by doing a job, while others will never get on the property ladder however hard they strive.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/14/britain-housing-crisis-10-ways-solve-rowan-moore-general-election?CMP=share_btn_tw

In some ways it was. Looked at holistically Thatchers policies on property might not have been in the long term best interests of the country, though obviously that depends on your opinion on various issues like the size of the state etc.

Personally I think selling off council houses well below market value, while also slashing construction, was a mistake. People often criticise Gordon Brown for selling gold at what turned out to be a market low; imagine how much the market value of the council houses sold cheap under right to buy would be worth now...

Generali

N1AK wrote: »

In some ways it was. Looked at holistically Thatchers policies on property might not have been in the long term best interests of the country, though obviously that depends on your opinion on various issues like the size of the state etc.

Personally I think selling off council houses well below market value, while also slashing construction, was a mistake. People often criticise Gordon Brown for selling gold at what turned out to be a market low; imagine how much the market value of the council houses sold cheap under right to buy would be worth now...

The problem was that in most areas, councils simply couldn't afford to maintain the properties on the tiny rents they were collecting especially given that most councils are so hugely inefficient.

A house that isn't being maintained quickly reverts to the value of the land.

People look back on council housing as a halcyon time. The fact is if you didn't get a council house you had the choice of paying a capped rent on a slum or sucking up to a bank manager in the hope that you might get a mortgage.

If you did get a council house the chances were it wouldn't be maintained properly or you'd end up in a vertical slum.