egafd.com

"Lizard,..............That's me.

THere was nothing special about the sell off of council houses by Thatcher. It was as disastrous as the sell-off of utilities etc. Why? Basically it meant that housing that we, the taxpayer, had paid for, was given away at a knock down price as part of a privatisation programme just like the utilties.

This is bollocks, try telling that to the millions who now own their own homes, also a great many of them were in a state of dis-repair, this saved the taxpayer millions, by not having to fork out for said repairs.

Who gained? As with the privatisation programme, the general taxpayer lost every way. They lost their assets sold for next to nothing. The state housing stock was reduced hugely and the cost of private rent soared to the sort of state we see now whereby the taxpayer yet again foots the bill in housing benefit which goes straight into private and corporate hands.

Wrong again, the people who bought them gained ie: the taxpayer, just because you live in a council house does not mean you don't pay tax, also many people who bought their own council houses became private landlords, why not they now owned an asset they could rent out, they moved on to better things.

However, I do think that we should invest in a great deal more council stock to give young people a home, something both the last Nu-Labour Government and this current one have failed to do

She stampped all over that self seeking greedy twatt Arthur what's his name? Oh yes, Scargill.
He is now suing the NUM for perks which he considers he should have even though he retired from them. Calls hissen President for Life. Smacks of some commie African dictatorship. Which is where I wish he would fuck off to.
He wanted a contribution towards a new car, amongst other things, and when offered ?50 he called the offer derisory. If I asked my boss for a contribuition for a new car he'd tell me to fuck off so why should this gobshyte think he deserves a new car from the NUM?
I feel extremely sorry for the miners who followed this megalomaniac to the destruction of the UK mining industry. My grandfather died early from the effects of mining as a young man. My own father was at the coal face at 15 years of age in 1922 in Leigh Lancs, so I am sympathetic to miners, but not yon greedy twatt, what's his name, oh yes, Scargill.

People including me have already answered your question, are you blind , or do you have selective reading syndrome .

This is bollocks, try telling that to the millions who now own their own homes, also a great many of them were in a state of dis-repair, this saved the taxpayer millions, by not having to fork out for said repairs"


No it is not bollocks. Obviously if someone comes to you and tells you that you can buy the house you live in for a huge discount which happened in the 80's then that is very attractive. What you need to look at is the increase in house values from the 80s to the present day. The value of many houses, particularly in the south of England and London has increased exponentially, in some cases from low 6 figures to over a ?1 million. These were our assets as a nation.

Were you in favour of Gordon Brown selling off large reserves of gold early in the Labour government? You should be in favour because your argument is the same, look let's sell this so we have the money. We can then use the money to make some people happy!

I suspect you are not aware of what went on in many attractive areas where council houses were built. Many people in council houses did not have the money even with a discount to buy houses in prime locations. That is why they lived in council houses!!! What happened in many cases was that deals were done with speculators who arranged a contract with the council tenants and lent them the dosh to buy the house on the basis that they had to sell in a few years when the minimum period in which you couldnt pass it on had lapsed.

"Wrong again, the people who bought them gained ie: the taxpayer, just because you live in a council house does not mean you don't pay tax, also many people who bought their own council houses became private landlords, why not they now owned an asset they could rent out, they moved on to better things."


You have misinterpreted my comment. Of course some of the 1.5 million who bought their houses paid tax. My point is that it is the other tens of millions who have been stuffed with the bill for the result.

The housing benefit bill has soared exponentially in the UK in line with the huge increase in rents. For example, the majority of people who are on housing benefits in Greater London, actually work. They cannot cope even with a salary to pay their rent. THat is why the coalition government rightly or wrongly have concentrated on reducing the housing benefit cost.

And overall, is the issue of the decimation of the state housing stock because Thatcher refused to allow the councils to replace the sold houses.

Yes, some people obviously benefited from getting a house owned by the nation at a greatly reduced price, but the downside of this move in terms of its overall effect on the nation greatly outweighs any benefits.

"People including me have already answered your question, are you blind , or do you have selective reading syndrome ."

In power from 1979 to 1997 and you come up with a single law which personally I think was a disaster overall for the state purse if you take into account the value of the assets sold at a knockdown price together with the huge housing benefit bill resulting from people having no option but to pay extortionate rents.?

Says it all really. Clearly there are significant differences in the policies that have been implemented by Tory and Labour governments.

You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about, ALL successive Governments do things that are both good and bad, it depends on your point of view and circumstances, you clearly disagree with people being able to buy their own homes even if they are Labour supporters. It has nothing whatsoever to do with selling gold, one is a commodity that nobody neeeds, the other is a vital necessity.

"You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about, ALL successive Governments do things that are both good and bad, "

Err, have I denied that? You are stating the bleeding obvious about "good and bad" which I would never disagree with.

The bottom line is that surprise, surprise, Thatcher's right to buy scheme represented the privatisation of the state council housing stock in the similar way that she introduced privatisation of utilities etc.

Now I do not deny that individuals made a killing from being able to buy their council house. But for example, as far as I recall you are against the privatisation of the utilities. I could say to you, look Liz, this is fantastic for the working man just like the right to buy is. They can spend their savings on getting British Gas shares or whatever at a knockdown price and make a few quid. Fantastic!

But just as the vast majority of us are paying the bill for the privatisation of utilties as we get ripped off royally, so the vast majority of us are paying the bill for the privatisation of the state council houses via a multi-billion housing benefit bill which results from the huge reduction in available council houses. In the same way we have sold off assets which would now be hugely valuable as anyone who has owned a house over the last 30 years would know

The madness of the elected dictatorship, the LibLabCon;