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

cepheus

Generali wrote: »

Not really. You just don't understand Thatcherism.

The point of Thatcherism was that it was an attempt to overthrow Corporatism.

Interesting interpretation, failed utterly then?

Loughton_Monkey

Generali wrote: »

.......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.

In those 'good old days', we musn't forget the other significant system of 'tied housing'.

Although I usually claim to have been born and bred in a council house, this is technically innacurate. I was, in fact, born in a house owned by the factory at which my father worked. However, I understand that he was always rather nervous of this and when a new council estate was being built in the village, he put his name down and we moved in when I was 2 years old.

The estate was 'good quality', new and when growing up, I was struck by the affluence of some of the tenants. We had two high ranking council officials (with cars) living opposite, and a number of school teachers. Most of these could have afforded to buy, but being of the 'pre-boomer' generation, they may have had different attitudes.

The rent subsidy, though, was small since the amount of rent represented a sgnificant part of take home pay.

These days, the 'good' thing about the current system is that the subsidy is based upon 'need', as evidenced by income and number of kids. However, the 'bad' thing is that what was a 'small subsidy' has become 'the taxpayer will pay the damned lot'. Does anyone know any other country that offers totally free houses on anything like this scale?

antrobus

cepheus wrote: »

Interesting interpretation, failed utterly then?

Thirteen years of Labour government.:)

antrobus

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

...The rent subsidy, though, was small since the amount of rent represented a significant part of take home pay.....

I hesitate to guess which particular time period those 'good old days' actually refer to, but there was indeed a time when the rent on your typical council house was indeed greater than the level of rent in the private sector.

To be able to afford a council house you actually needed a reasonably well paid and secure job. The idea that council housing rents should be subsidised would be quite a modern idea.

TheBlueHorse

why do we need council housing at all. people should be responsible for themselves. The Govt should have no role to play in looking after people. It should provide education, health, roads, police, courts, prisons, rubbish collection, street lights and army and not much else.

People pay tax to provide the above things for themselves and other tax payers. I pay through the nose to house my family. Why should I also have money taken off me to house other people - they can do it themselves.

cells

the_flying_pig wrote: »

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.

or.... that back then there was no shortage of homes and the government didn't want to overbuild council homes no one needed.

back in the 1990s, London was awash with homes including social homes due to the population falling off a cliff.

London Population

1961 = 7.78m
1991 = 6.89m

So about 1 million people left London AND during the same time some 3/4ths of a million additional homes were built in London.

The result was that by the early 1990s London was the least densely populated region in the whole UK and perhaps even in the whole of Europe! (fewer people per home)

cells

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

why do we need council housing at all. people should be responsible for themselves. The Govt should have no role to play in looking after people. It should provide education, health, roads, police, courts, prisons, rubbish collection, street lights and army and not much else.

People pay tax to provide the above things for themselves and other tax payers. I pay through the nose to house my family. Why should I also have money taken off me to house other people - they can do it themselves.

Get out and meet more people

Some people are incapable of looking after themselves including such basics as washing themselves so how the hell do you expect them to be capable of holding onto and paying the upkeep of a home.

Others as so socially inept that normal people don't want to mix with them and they stay that way which keeps them from gaining work and keeps them in perpetual poverty.

Just these groups alone probably cap the lower limit of council housing towards 5% of the stock


I would say 10% of the stock needs to stay council as for one reason or another the private sector cant or wont house them.

But that does indeed mean that some 2 to 2.5 million current council homes could be sold off

cells

antrobus wrote: »

I hesitate to guess which particular time period those 'good old days' actually refer to, but there was indeed a time when the rent on your typical council house was indeed greater than the level of rent in the private sector.

To be able to afford a council house you actually needed a reasonably well paid and secure job. The idea that council housing rents should be subsidised would be quite a modern idea.

I remember reading a report a while back about council housing in the UK and if i remember correctly at its peak council homes were 31% of the housing stock

I would argue that at least 10% of the housing stock has to be private rental for various reasons (students, hmos, people living away from home, temporary rentals between owning or new arrivals etc etc)


What that means is, if council housing was maintained at 31% then owners could not have past 59% in the UK.

So those who look back at the decline in council homes believe that there should have been a cap at 59% MAX for owning homes

They simply dont realise that if the state is to house 30% of us, then that means a lot less owners which is a bad thing all round


likewise, if the current ~17% of the council stock was sold down towards 7% of the stock, it would result in a ~10% boost in owner occupiers which would be good

cells

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

In those 'good old days', we musn't forget the other significant system of 'tied housing'.

Although I usually claim to have been born and bred in a council house, this is technically innacurate. I was, in fact, born in a house owned by the factory at which my father worked. However, I understand that he was always rather nervous of this and when a new council estate was being built in the village, he put his name down and we moved in when I was 2 years old.

The estate was 'good quality', new and when growing up, I was struck by the affluence of some of the tenants. We had two high ranking council officials (with cars) living opposite, and a number of school teachers. Most of these could have afforded to buy, but being of the 'pre-boomer' generation, they may have had different attitudes.

The rent subsidy, though, was small since the amount of rent represented a sgnificant part of take home pay.

These days, the 'good' thing about the current system is that the subsidy is based upon 'need', as evidenced by income and number of kids. However, the 'bad' thing is that what was a 'small subsidy' has become 'the taxpayer will pay the damned lot'. Does anyone know any other country that offers totally free houses on anything like this scale?

why would it be so bad for housing to be free*?

everyone who is marred (or equivalent) gets a OK house gifted to them from the state a few months before their first kid is born. Sale can only take place to buy another home

If that were the case, the state would make dam sure that housing was plenty and built to a truly affordable budget. My guess is that the state (via tendering to private builders) would manage just fine outputting homes for not much more than £75k a unit


At some stage, the price of existing homes would fall below the price of building new homes (when we reach an excess of homes) and the state instead of commissioning new builds for £75k can buy the old stock for £60k and "recycle it" to gift them to the next lot






*to build 300k such homes a year @£75k a unit would cost £22.5B a year vs the expected Housing Benifit bill of some £25B a year now

crash123

The council would sell houses before 'right to buy' became policy as our neighbours bought theirs, a 3 bed, however the council wouldn't sell 4 beds until right to buy when my parents bought. If you sold within a certain number of years you had to pay the discount back. After 5 years ( I think) you could sell without an penalty. The majority sold after 5 years and moved for snob purposes , my parents stayed until they died a few years ago. The house is still lived in by a family member.
The house was bought for £8800( 1982 ish) and is worth a lot more but it is worth more to me as memoires.