Maggie Thatcher, the iron lady

[Stressedout65]

Not an aibu know, but just watched Mrs Thatcher v The Miners on C5 from last night. I remember the strike vividly but felt far removed from it as we weren't part of a mining community.
For those who can remember her, good or bad for Britain? Admire her or hate her? I can't decide. Part of me thinks she was a complete & utter bitch, another part of me thinks she had more balls than all the wet blankets currently running the country now or since

That was my thinking Stamford. Fairer than council tax, that penalises single people, couples, and small families.

oh well if this is a conservative party sounding out people then I look forward to a Labour government.
Because anyone with any understanding of history would look at what went wrong and stay well away from this policy. It is what a Civil Servant would say is a brave, even daring policy decision aka bloody stupid and will lose you lots of votes.

[quote jellybeansforbreakfast]@JebelSherif a quick Google will reveal quite a lot of evidence, people speaking about what they know she actually knew.

FOI requests have also shown this to be true.[/quote]
To be fair, it is not a subject I want to 'google' to be honest - for obvious reasons.

You said it, you prove it....

Can you copy and paste something concrete on here? Otherwise I have to conclude that your assertion that Margaret Thatcher knew Jimmy Saville was a paedophile, is hearsay and an attempt by you to besmirch her name.

[quote shakingstevensfan]@Tealightsandd I lived in rented accommodation in London when the poll tax was in. Lots of young people moved every six months. It was hard to get tenancies for any length of time. And people moved across boroughs all the time.
And yes there should be better housing options everywhere. But London has been shit show for housing for a long time.[/quote]
But up to the late 90s normal average and lower income London families were still able to live in their local communities. Thatcher started the devastation - right to buy hit London hard - but Tony Blair really went for it. He didn't end right to buy when there was still a chance to repair the damage and he wanted to turn London into a playground for the young and rich. To come, make money out of it, then leave. Nevermind Londoners and London families and communities.

Which is why the old rates system was fairer

The rates system was based on property value. 🙄

[quote shakingstevensfan]@Tealightsandd I lived in rented accommodation in London when the poll tax was in. Lots of young people moved every six months. It was hard to get tenancies for any length of time. And people moved across boroughs all the time.
And yes there should be better housing options everywhere. But London has been shit show for housing for a long time.[/quote]
People only moved if they wanted to. Not like now.

I have older friends who were renting then. They had secure tenancies in those days.

In fact when I started renting, it wasn't like it is now. You might initially sign 6 months but there was no fear of being turfed out at the end of the 6 months.

In the 90s many landlords were still carrying on with the old pre 1988 Housing Act secure tenancy mindset.

It was also easy for students to get 9 or 10 month contracts (and no need for guarantor or anything like that). Landlords took your word too - people on benefits were accepted or got away with claiming to be a student. People were able to rent much more easily. Not like now.

The rates system was based on property value.

As explained by caffeine upthread, paid by the owner. Renters didn't pay it.

If Labour and the Unions hadn't fucked up so badly in the 1970s she'd never have got into office. Having said that, whatever you may say about her I believe she was personally honest and actually believed that what she was doing was in the country's (as opposed to her party's) interest. Would that all her successors could say the same (looking at you Dave).

I tend to agree Facey. Unsurprisingly to anyone here, I add Blair to your Dave (the wrong David won the leadership contest imo).

Thatcher started the devastation - right to buy hit London hard - but Tony Blair really went for it. He didn't end right to buy when there was still a chance to repair the damage

You seem to be so black and white on this issue and I can understand it to an extent (we can all agree how damaging right to buy was).

But you are refusing to see the wider picture.

It's all well and good saying Blair should have ended right to buy immediately, increased disability benefits, given every miner an apprenticeship, paid hefty benefits to everyone getting over depression.

But the UK is not a particularly socialist country.

I know that seems hard for a lot of people to understand... but it's true. How many threads on here have wide agreements that without Scotland to 'help', Labour need to shift far more into the center to ever have a chance of winning an election.

At that time he had council tenants over the moon at being able to own their homes, he had HA tenants angry that they couldn't also do it, and opposing Tory leader promises that if they were elected, they'd be given that right. He had one half of his party saying that RTB does not work with rising rates of homelessness and the other, centrist (arguably realist) half saying to limit RTB would send them back to the unelectable 'enemies of home ownership' they were seen as in previous years.

All well and good saying "end right to buy" when it would have been introduced straight back in after the next election. The horse had already bolted, the tories opened the gate and made it very clear they'd keep opening it.

And this is the attitude that Blair created. Lazy stereotypes.

Did he though? How can he be blamed for creating something that anyone who lived in a deprived area saw with their own eyes?

And as I said in my post, they were anything but lazy - cash in hand was massive.

I genuinely have no personal vendetta against people fiddling the system, I still know a few to this to day (although the 'bad backs' of the past have been replaced with the partners who officially live at their mums address)... the people fiddling at the top probably cost us way more anyway. What I take issue with is the champagne socialists who pretend it absolutely does not happen, ever, to fit their agenda.

And because everyone knows it happens they get increasingly frustrated with people telling them it doesn't, which makes them more likely to vote for parties who promise to make things fairer.

And smart socialists who actually get elected know this. They're walking a fine line between creating a fairer society by lifting people out of poverty, and making sure enough people vote for them.

Where are Labour now?
No where to be seen, Corbyn was far too socialistic for the majority of Labour voters. Its a heck of a job to pull back from that.

The intention behind the Right To Buy policy for councils was to rid councils of their massive debts, which they had all acquired post-war, and to put them back on a sounder footing, and with debt servicing payments gone, have then going forth on balanced budgets.

Once debt paid off, councils were free to start building council houses again (yes, that surprises many, but it's easily checkable). Councils which said revenue should be put back in to housing were missing the point of the policy, and I think misleading the public.

What is telling is that so few did restart building, even when there was no bar.

And how many have racked up debts since then. I don't think they have enough remaining assets to make a serious dent now.

It's a key difference between the Thatcher years and the Blair years - living within yout means and getting everything on to a sound footing, v living on the never never.

A major part of Blair's campaign for first electoral win was a pledge to maintain Tory economic policies. And Brown won his 'prudence' reputation basically for being a Tory. It was later that the reckless spending of a country that thought it was rich came through.

It's one of those conundrums - Tory approach hated when the Tories do it because they're 'nasty'. Labour adopts same policies (sometimes openly) and they win biggest electoral victories and are praised for prudence

@RoseAndRose

The intention behind the Right To Buy policy for councils was to rid councils of their massive debts, which they had all acquired post-war, and to put them back on a sounder footing, and with debt servicing payments gone, have then going forth on balanced budgets.

Once debt paid off, councils were free to start building council houses again (yes, that surprises many, but it's easily checkable). Councils which said revenue should be put back in to housing were missing the point of the policy, and I think misleading the public.

What is telling is that so few did restart building, even when there was no bar.

And how many have racked up debts since then. I don't think they have enough remaining assets to make a serious dent now.

It's a key difference between the Thatcher years and the Blair years - living within yout means and getting everything on to a sound footing, v living on the never never.

A major part of Blair's campaign for first electoral win was a pledge to maintain Tory economic policies. And Brown won his 'prudence' reputation basically for being a Tory. It was later that the reckless spending of a country that thought it was rich came through.

It's one of those conundrums - Tory approach hated when the Tories do it because they're 'nasty'. Labour adopts same policies (sometimes openly) and they win biggest electoral victories and are praised for prudence

Well, of course councils didn't build after selling. What capital would they have to do so? Selling the family silver to pay off your debts doesn't leave you with any silver. Or income from renting it out, which they had previously.

It's not living within your means to sell your only asset if your outgoings will plunge you straight back into debt. Council finances should all have been overhauled and streamlined before losing their capital.

Capital from further sales

The entitlement to buy didn't stop once the debts was cleared, and there were many calls for money raised to be out back into housing stock. Yes, the start point could only be after debt was cleared, but once it was there was no inhibition in doing that, despite inaccurate reporting that it was an absolute bar.

@FaceyRomford

If Labour and the Unions hadn't fucked up so badly in the 1970s she'd never have got into office. Having said that, whatever you may say about her I believe she was personally honest and actually believed that what she was doing was in the country's (as opposed to her party's) interest. Would that all her successors could say the same (looking at you Dave).

She wasn't honest (she was a proven liar on multiple issues).

I hated Right to Buy. As now people were struggling for secure accommodation and state owned assets that all tax payers had paid for were sold off for a pittance. I did some work for a Council at the time. The Head of Housing worked hard to get values up from the very low levels. It was annoying seeing a very decent family home being sold for £20k and then the next week in the local paper for sale for £250k.

Also some of the then ex tenants still used to ring up and ask for Repairs to go round and fix something!

I’m not one of those people who hates Margaret Thatcher like my brother who still blames her for everything. However she was very dogmatic and there was no recognition that some people were getting on in life not due to hard work but privilege and a large mass of people were excluded. State schools were absolutely awful during her time. I find it hard to believe any money was spent beyond paying the staff. I don’t know the percentages but based on my own experience only a very small number of state school pupils went to University. Hence Tony Blair being very successful with “equality of opportunity”.

The union hold in some areas of life was bad but I don’t believe privatisation of utilities should have happened. Maybe she believed it was the only way to force modernisation of working practices.

I didn't know that, what a stupid idea, she real was crazed.

Not stupid at all when you are the one leader in the world supporting SA, who do you think they were going to vote for? Labour were passionately anti apartheid.

She was making moves to sell the Falklands off, had removed British Citizenship from Falkland islanders and was in negotiations with Argentina about their status.

But then Argentina invaded, and suddenly we are at war and shortly afterwards Falkland Islanders were British again.

OK the link is wikki - sorry

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nationality_(Falkland_Islands)_Act_1983

The poll tax was another level of evil. They kept talking about widows in large houses having to pay more than 4 people in a terraced house.

I paid £100 rates in the last year of rates, the poll tax was £1800 and that was with a huge amount of 'transitional relief'.

Under the rates system you paid for each property you owned so landlords payed rates and people with second homes also paid rates on both homes. Now tenants pay council tax and second home owners often do not pay council tax on their second homes.

The way the poll tax and council tax was calculated was totally unfair to most of the UK. Band A properties were properties up to £40 000 I was in the North West, for that money you could get a 3 bed semi with a garage and garden. Terraced houses were about £10 - 15 000 so a large number of properties were in band A, meaning only a few were in band B - C so the band A properties had to pay more of the town's 'share'.

My mum worked in an estate agent, someone from the south of England phoned up, her husband had been offered a promotion but they had to move and she wanted to know what her budget would buy. I think it was £500 000.

There was literally no property in the area at that price, the most expensive had several bedrooms, land and stables.

Another cruel policy was not allowing mortgage payments from benefits.

If you were made redundant and could not afford your mortgage you used to be able to claim the equivalent of housing benefit for, I think, 2 years.

Mrs T decided that was wrong, so you had, in some cases people selling their home and moving from their mortgaged home to the rented house next door.

The rented house might be charging double what the mortgage was. Even if you got a new job you couldn't just buy back your old property.

In the meantime right to buy gave (still does) a huge discount on buying council houses, regardless of who had been paying your rent.

I have a friend, and I blame the system not her, who became pregnant as a teenager, she got a 3 bed council house, the rent was paid by the council. She has worked when she can but mostly due to her circumstances and ill health her rent has been paid through benefits.

A few years ago she was working so bought her house at a huge difference.

It's one of those conundrums - Tory approach hated when the Tories do it because they're 'nasty'. Labour adopts same policies (sometimes openly) and they win biggest electoral victories and are praised for prudence

I do agree with this, however I wonder how much comes from the way the parties either implement things or spin things?

A prime example of this is the bedroom tax (for me, a moderate lefty who would vote Labour if not for the SNP).

The Tories introduced this policy, and I actually think it is pretty smart and fair. Only because I'm a realist and there is not enough stock to provide for everyone who needs a lifetime tenancy. When getting a council home is akin to winning the lottery and based entirely on need, it was really unfair that a single person whose family have left can rattle around in a 4 bed home, and have their rent paid by the state.

So moving them to suitable accommodation and giving the 4 bed to a homeless family makes complete sense.

The problem was all in the implementation, because people weren't given time or support to move, and there is a shortage of suitable properties to move into. What should have happened is similar to the homeless priority where if you consistently turn down houses or fail to bid on houses, your priority is removed (i.e, if 5 suitable downsize moves are refused, then start removing HB).

SNP scrapped the policy in Scotland and as a lefty I was against that. Because the idea behind it was about fairness, it was just the methods that were nasty. They could have easily made the methods more humane. So typical example of a lefty who agrees with righty policies, is against them from Tories but would vote for them if made fairer by Lab/SNP.

And you can draw the same parallels between Blair introducing the assessment for new disability claims (sensible, especially in areas where disability is 5X the rate of unemployment), and the Cameron constant re-assessment of existing disability claims (from all accounts a horrendous process, with 85% of decisions being overturned at tribunal).

I feel like there is nuance in all of this which is missed when you come at things from Tory = EVIL & Labour = GOOD. They're all basically wanting the same thing in the end, which is votes, a growing economy, and people who can work in work. I think both parties encourage home ownership because A) it's a vote winner - people want to own homes and B) it stops a lot of people being as left behind.

@winched

I feel like there is nuance in all of this which is missed when you come at things from Tory = EVIL & Labour = GOOD. They're all basically wanting the same thing in the end, which is votes, a growing economy, and people who can work in work. I think both parties encourage home ownership because A) it's a vote winner - people want to own homes and B) it stops a lot of people being as left behind.

That's exactly it, isn't it.

It's bizarre on here at times because there's such venom from the Left - see NHS threads or the Thatcher one, for examples.

In real life it's nothing like that - people aren't (usually) completely loyal to one side or another. Hence the swings we see at election time.

@Tealightsandd

The rates system was based on property value.

As explained by caffeine upthread, paid by the owner. Renters didn't pay it.

And with the rent set at a level that covered it. Landlords weren’t paying it themselves out of the goodness of their hearts.

[quote SofiaMichelle]@winched

I feel like there is nuance in all of this which is missed when you come at things from Tory = EVIL & Labour = GOOD. They're all basically wanting the same thing in the end, which is votes, a growing economy, and people who can work in work. I think both parties encourage home ownership because A) it's a vote winner - people want to own homes and B) it stops a lot of people being as left behind.

That's exactly it, isn't it.

It's bizarre on here at times because there's such venom from the Left - see NHS threads or the Thatcher one, for examples.

In real life it's nothing like that - people aren't (usually) completely loyal to one side or another. Hence the swings we see at election time.[/quote]
Not all venom is from the left. There's plenty from the right too.

A lot of people actually are loyal to one side or the other - hence seats where a donkey with a Blue or Red rosette could get elected. There are very many safe seats - elections are determined by the swings in the few seats where there's a chance of someone else winning.
The majority of people's votes are actually ignored as they vote for the "loser".
This is why the referendum was revolutionary as it actually made every vote count across the UK as a whole.

There are very many safe seats - elections are determined by the swings in the few seats where there's a chance of someone else winning

So true. They weigh the Tory votes round here so I’m essentially disenfranchised. It made it easier to square spoiling my paper with my conscience last time because I know it would affect nothing.

@RoseAndRose

Capital from further sales

The entitlement to buy didn't stop once the debts was cleared, and there were many calls for money raised to be out back into housing stock. Yes, the start point could only be after debt was cleared, but once it was there was no inhibition in doing that, despite inaccurate reporting that it was an absolute bar.

They were selling for a few grand. The cost of buying land and building enough new homes could never have been raised from selling a few more existing places.

@Blossomtoes

There are very many safe seats - elections are determined by the swings in the few seats where there's a chance of someone else winning

So true. They weigh the Tory votes round here so I’m essentially disenfranchised. It made it easier to square spoiling my paper with my conscience last time because I know it would affect nothing.

Yes it takes far fewer votes to elect a Tory MP than a labour (or any other party) MP. The Conservatives’ share of the UK national vote was 43.6%, but their share of seats was 56.2%.
Until we reject first past the post that has been further manipulated to Tory advantage, then we are stuck with Johnson et al.