Ding dong the Witch is dead

13468918

Comments

  • PiersPiers ✭✭✭

    It's amazing how much vitriol is on here. Whilst Thatcher was the catalyst for the closure of the pits I can assure you, as someone who spent the late 80s and early 90s as a Mining Engineer in the North East the industry was doomed.

    UK deep pits were just nowhere near economic not because of the workers just the geology and the cheapness of imports. It's also a pretty grim job, unfortunately the closure of pits devestated an area and Durham still to this day has some very poor villages, however they would have closed eventually with or without the strike.

    I think people have rose tinted spectacles about the 1970's; the UK was absolutely bankrupt, inflation was regularly over 20% we had three day weeks, no electricity, general strikes and the governments were on their knees infront of the unions. The IMF had to bail us out and we had the lowest productivity in Europe. Thatcher saw the move to market economics as the way to drag the UK out of the mire and it did work though it was painful.

    Does anyone remember how long it used to take to get a phone line put in, it could take 6 months.

    Like most PMs all are hated if they stay to long, look at Bliar and at least you knew what you were getting with Thatcher, you may have hated it but you know it wasn't driven by focus groups.

  • I rather think she would be enjoying all these debates and the fact that people have/had such strong opinions about her.

    I mean what are people going to say about David Cameron when he pops his clogs? Meh?

  • Section 28 (which her Government implemented) was repealed in 2003.  Point taken though; I think a lot of what she did needed doing but just not in the way she did it.

     

    I remember arguing in a sixth form debate that the selling off of council houses would lead to shortages down the line, which has been borne out in practice.

  • BarklesBarkles ✭✭✭

    I can respect someone's politiics, but thats not same thing as methodology. A leader must consider the consequences of actions. She saw the consequences and ignored them. Thats not vitriol.

  • I actually think that selling council houses to tenants wasn't such a bad idea, and it is generally accepted now that a mix of social housing and owner-occupied makes for better communities rather than massive ghettoes of the very poor. What WAS a bad idea was ensuring that councils couldn't invest the proceeds back into their housing stock, leading to shortages in social housing (let's face it, there are always going to be people who need it) and running down that which was left.



    The idea that EVERYONE should own their own home and EVERYONE could make money out of what was, ultimately, a roof over their heads, was a major contributor to the mess we find ourselves in now. It was a kind of insanity that took over the USA as well, that we could all borrow more than we could afford and be rescued by never ending house price inflation.
  • Agreed - that as I recall was what I said back in sixth form.

  • Cartoon in today's Guardian

    http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/4/8/1365456662820/Steve-Bell-09.03.2013-013.jpg

     

  • I often wonder with the council housing that was sold..did anyone ever go back and see how many after buying them sold them off for the profit.......and then later on returned to rented accompdation at the highewr prices paid for by rent benefit........

    no doubt the prices continued to rise and some of those properties are no doubt having their rent paid for by the benefit system nowimage

  •  

    Peter Everitt wrote (see)

    For the record, I'm not that interested in politics, I don't agree that a state funeral is appropriate but I do think that when someone dies a bit of respect is due especially considering there is family for whom she was their mum.

     

    Agree with Peter and I am also uninterested in politics - I absolutely don't think the tax payer should pick up the bill for the funeral, surely her family are wealthy enough to finance that.

     

  • XFR Bear wrote (see)

    I remember arguing in a sixth form debate that the selling off of council houses would lead to shortages down the line, which has been borne out in practice.


    If a sixth former could see the potentially dangerous consequences of selling off council houses (and the back door re-introduction of private Landlords on a grand scale) then how could anyone believe that she wasn't scheming all along to put the clock back on our welfare gains.   

  • presumably you've never heard of 'unintended consequences'

  • Piers wrote (see)

    It's amazing how much vitriol is on here. Whilst Thatcher was the catalyst for the closure of the pits I can assure you, as someone who spent the late 80s and early 90s as a Mining Engineer in the North East the industry was doomed.

    UK deep pits were just nowhere near economic not because of the workers just the geology and the cheapness of imports. It's also a pretty grim job, unfortunately the closure of pits devestated an area and Durham still to this day has some very poor villages, however they would have closed eventually with or without the strike.

    I think people have rose tinted spectacles about the 1970's; the UK was absolutely bankrupt, inflation was regularly over 20% we had three day weeks, no electricity, general strikes and the governments were on their knees infront of the unions. The IMF had to bail us out and we had the lowest productivity in Europe.


    Amen to that. I have lived in County Durham pre and post the closures, and my father was a geologist. Anyone who thinks she caused the end of that industry has no clue. But they feel strongly. They need someone to hold responsible and "more accesible coal overseas" doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "maggie".  Hence the grave-dancers and the guardian cartoon. We need the myth.

     

  • seren nos wrote (see)

    I often wonder with the council housing that was sold..did anyone ever go back and see how many after buying them sold them off for the profit.......and then later on returned to rented accompdation at the highewr prices paid for by rent benefit........

    no doubt the prices continued to rise and some of those properties are no doubt having their rent paid for by the benefit system nowimage

    I helped my mother buy her council house by "lending" her the money as only tenants could buy the property, not 3rd parties.  we did this for one simple reason - the council rent she was paying was a significant chunk of her pension so it helped her out of a possible poverty trap as it was becoming a financial burden to her.  for the amount of rent she was paying you could have got a decent mortgage!  in our view the council were taking the piss charging the rent they did.  we also extended and adapted the house for her increasing infirmity - something the council would have been unwilling to do.

    buying was the right thing to do at the time as it allowed her a better quality of life even though there was lot of reluctance on her part in becoming a house owner, partly due to her socialist principles!

    the house passed to me when she died and, yes, a decent profit was made but that was concidental to the reasons for buying in the 1st place which was to give my mother peace of mind. 

    perhaps selling council stock was one thing that I can thank Thatcher for but not in the way that perhaps many people think

  • EKGO wrote (see)
    EKGO wrote (see)
    XFR Bear wrote (see)

    I remember arguing in a sixth form debate that the selling off of council houses would lead to shortages down the line, which has been borne out in practice.


    If a sixth former could see the potentially dangerous consequences of selling off council houses (and the back door re-introduction of private Landlords on a grand scale) then how could anyone believe that she wasn't scheming all along to put the clock back on our welfare gains.   

     

    I still maintian that no politician thinks that far ahead. Everything is done for short term (political) gain. It's one of the reasons people are so disillusioned with politics. 

  • Too Much Water wrote (see)

    presumably you've never heard of 'unintended consequences'


    Dream on, the consequences were clear, and if someone is running the country I'd expect them to have foresight enough, so it was either deliberate and planned, or incompetent, your choice

  • it wasn't just the mining industry.the whole of the manufacturing industry went wiping out areas...and the new jobs replacing them with the big money all seemed to be in the south east......

     

     

     

  • FB: My dad bought our council house because it was cheaper than what it was costing him to rent it!

     

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    The Thatcher legacy has revealed that we are but a landscape of winners and losers. 

    When she came to power the opinion was the country was a loser and after a while it became a winner. But that's a generalisation. What about individuals?

    Like it or not, at the core of most of us is 'self interest'. How much do you really care that someone has been bankrupted as long as its not you.

    She created a competition where the assumption was everyone could win. What happened was that some could win but an awful lot couldn't. It may well be in their nature, but dog eat dog, look out for number one doesn't suit everyone.

    And now there doesn't appear to be any conventional means of success. Just great tranches of exploitation and lucky breaks, if any.

    A bloody rat race for sure. 

     

    🙂

  • DeanR7DeanR7 ✭✭✭

    Ekgo - council housing is something i know little about but:

    did the govn only sell the houses to people who already lived in them?

    what were the advantages to the govn if the housing fell into the hands of the private landlords?

  • same as the shares no doubt.......the government sold them so getting the income.......

    the poeple who recieved the shares sold them on quickly for a quick profit....and those with money who bought them all up made massive profits long term......

    take away council houses and the buy to let industry became a massive boom.....now it was quick thinking individuals........and those with money and porperty together who went out and bought lots of cheap housing ( so pushing up the markets to make it difficult for ordinary workers to buy)....they then make massive profits by having the state pay the rents on their properties

  • Dean, yes the councils could only sell to the people who lived in the houses. They basically got a discount off the market value. There were (and still are) restrictions regarding being able to sell on for so many years...basically if you sell on within a certain time limit, the discount has to be paid back to the council.

    Problem was the councils weren't allowed to spend the money they received on building new houses, hence there's a huge shortage now.

    Until 18 months ago, I worked for a housing association so saw the results of right to buy with far too few houses for people that needed them and ever decreasing grants to help associations fund the building of new ones (which is largely funded through private borrowing now).

     

  • In cities like Liverpool and Glasgow, industry had been on the downturn long before Thatcher took power.

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    I had the concept of 'Buy to let' put to me in 1996. I didn't like the idea one bit.

    Its really 'Borrow to let'.

    Or really 'Borrow some money to buy a house that a bank wouldn't let you buy for yourself to live in, but ok's the deal since you are going to screw someone else for more in rent than the mortgage costs. On top of that, any increase in the value of the property is all yours as well. 

    They sold this idea and still do as an investment.

    I even wrote to the finance section of a broad sheet pointing out that this is the most lopsided investment ever. Where an invester actually gets someone else to pay for their investment. Pure one on one exploitation of one individual over another.

    It always annoyed me, this one. 

     

    🙂

  • SSP's right on who could buy council property.

    I couldn't buy my mother's house for her, it had to be done in her name, hence the loan of money to her on the agreement that on her death the property would pass to me and I would share any profit with my sister after deducting my loan amount at cost.

    she'd lived in the property for nearly 70 years (from the age of 2) so she got maximum discount off market value - 60% discount I think. 

    the biggest problem as SSP says was that councils couldn't reinvest the sales proceeds in building new properties which was frankly wrong and led to the current shortages.

  • RicF wrote (see)

    I had the concept of 'Buy to let' put to me in 1996. I didn't like the idea one bit.

    Its really 'Borrow to let'.

    Or really 'Borrow some money to buy a house that a bank wouldn't let you buy for yourself to live in, but ok's the deal since you are going to screw someone else for more in rent than the mortgage costs. On top of that, any increase in the value of the property is all yours as well. 

    They sold this idea and still do as an investment.

    I even wrote to the finance section of a broad sheet pointing out that this is the most lopsided investment ever. Where an invester actually gets someone else to pay for their investment. Pure one on one exploitation of one individual over another.

    It always annoyed me, this one. 

     

    and that lack of joined up thinking comment annoys me!  we have 2 properties that are let out but we have no loans on them - we own them outright and have done from the start.   we have been self employed for over 25 years and we invested in property so it could eventually fund our pension. we have contributed back into the country through taxes and as employers.

    at the time we bought property prices were still rising so the returns on the investment were potentially better than having the money in a traditional pension fund where managers manage the investment strategy for best return.   any mindful person would seek best return on their investment.

    we've since seen a property price crash so our investments have bombed you could say - our pensions are very likely to be affected.  so when we see/hear tales of government employees and their nice index linked final salary pensions for having taken no risks ever during their careers, we get pretty fucking angry when we get singled out as exploiters.

    but no sympathy needed, we took the risk, we knew the possible pitfalls but please don't tar everyone with the same brush.

     

  • On this whole "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead" thing. It's utterly tasteless.

    I've seen the Thatcher Is Dead "street parties". The people involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves, most of them just use any excuse to cause trouble. Looking at the pictures most of them wouldn't have been born when Thatcher was running the country.

    Britain is just full of "smelly people". They just take the most out of the system and pay the least in. They also have the most "needs" so the working public has to constantly pay for them to live their shitty, waste of oxygen lives. A product of Labour. Born with a sense of entitlement.

     

     

  • The Circle line is certainly full of smelly people. 

  • What a load of "rubbish"
  • Demon Barber.

    You talk a load of rubbish.

    Do you read the Mail as well?

  • Eggyh73Eggyh73 ✭✭✭
    EKGO wrote (see)
    Too Much Water wrote (see)

    presumably you've never heard of 'unintended consequences'


    Dream on, the consequences were clear, and if someone is running the country I'd expect them to have foresight enough, so it was either deliberate and planned, or incompetent, your choice

    I think our political elite actually aim for deliberate planned incompetence. If not they have an uncanny aptitude for it.

Sign In or Register to comment.