Too many sub-threads in this thread but it's a fascinating one for sure!
---------- Post added at 16:29 ---------- Previous post was at 16:26 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Your criticism of Thatcher's attempt to create a socially responsible, property-owing democracy was somewhat misplaced, yes, IMO.  |
I will take 'property-owing' as subconscious rather than simply a mistake.
Had that been the intention alone not preventing councils from replacing stock with the proceeds rather than causing a big crunch in housing supply that we're feeling the effects of even now, with the resultant prodigious debt hang-over, property-owing indeed, might have been a plan. Alongside some quite ill-advised privatisations, with some very sensible ones, there was tons of ideology at work, which is biting more and more.
As it is taxpayers have to subsidise the 'property-owing' democracy to avoid banks going under and the housing benefit bill is through the roof due to a lack of affordable housing as Thatcher cut stock and destroyed ability to supply.
If you do give the benefit of the doubt and say it was an unintentional consequence it was a pretty large one, with the added bonus we're now below the EU-27 average for home ownership rates, that includes those states that didn't gut social housing provision to foster home ownership.
Anyway I think I'm out of this, interesting as the thread and its sub-threads are!
---------- Post added at 16:37 ---------- Previous post was at 16:29 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
How could "right to buy" affected housing availability? Just as much housing was available as if "right to buy" had never happened. It was just a transfer of ownership.
|
One more.
it destroyed affordable housing availability and going forward wiped out councils' ability to build as they couldn't use proceeds of the sales to build more. How're the queues for social housing looking in your local area?
