Thatcher Dies

[Babylon]

Where the **** do you think our one and two bedroom housing stock went?

Single mums and immigrants of course silly.

[_Fatboyslow_]

.

You’re wrong there; it was very easy to get a mortgage provided you’d made some effort to save up a deposit of around 10%, and could prove you had the means to pay it off.

Building societies had some sort of standard formula for working this out based on your wage what mortgage you could get, but I can’t remember what it was .

I bought my first house when I was about 20 and on quite a low wage as a blue collar worker .It was a modest terraced house and it cost me £3,500, which was about the average price in Leicester in the early 70’s.

I got no help to do this from any other source

I got a couple of mates to live in as lodgers and charged them a tenner a week all inc. and I practically lived rent free for years, and had plenty of money for a social life etc

I think it would be much harder for a young person these days to undertake even such a modest enterprise as this.

Who do you think the multitude of building societies was lending money to if it wasn’t ordinary workers wanting to buy houses?

Some sort of historical myth has grown out of the right to buy scheme.

Well here we have it don't we, breaching the terms of your mortgage (subletting) which most likely means you did not declare it as an income. Ah hoy you did ok so that's what counts.

The formula was 3.5 of your weekly wage (4 for higher earners) and norminaly based on one wage. Before the changes you would need a 20% discount and have to have saved for 2 years before a application would be considered. After the changes overtime could be included, interest only was a hard sell and with council housing the discount could be used as a deposit/equality for loans. Dammed if I can remember how high the interest rates went 14 or 16 % ?

What the right to buy did do was remove the right to accomadtion for many and turn over the planning of the UK's housing to the forces of the free market (which is rarely ever free ) with many couples now paying 50% or more of their income for accomadtion. I do not see this as a myth, nor do I the two collapses of house prices in the last 30 years plus the most recent dip (sic)

[Finnegan]

Single mums and immigrants of course silly.

Oh yeah, oops, how daft of me!!

[l444ry]

Didn't see this before.

Well, the Argentine aircraft carrier contained Super Etendard aircraft with a combat radius of 520 miles. The exocet, which were deployed on the Super Etendard and Belgrano, have a range of 70 miles.

That shrinks the 350 miles a bit.

By the way, I respect your objection to the sinking of the Belgrano. I just think it was militarily necessary.

That version is well documented. However, if the Belgrano was the risk it was claimed then why was it not sunk the day before, when it was sailing TOWARDS the task force. The Conqueror had been tracking the Belgrano for 36 hours and was sailing AWAY rom the taskforce and its captain was well aware of this. That's why he asked for confirmation from London 3 times to torpedo his target. All these facts came out later and John Nott and his cronies official version were found to have misled the nation and riddled with downright lies.

[pSinatra]

You’re wrong there; it was very easy to get a mortgage provided you’d made some effort to save up a deposit of around 10%, and could prove you had the means to pay it off.

Building societies had some sort of standard formula for working this out based on your wage what mortgage you could get, but I can’t remember what it was .

I bought my first house when I was about 20 and on quite a low wage as a blue collar worker .It was a modest terraced house and it cost me £3,500, which was about the average price in Leicester in the early 70’s.

I got no help to do this from any other source

I got a couple of mates to live in as lodgers and charged them a tenner a week all inc. and I practically lived rent free for years, and had plenty of money for a social life etc

I think it would be much harder for a young person these days to undertake even such a modest enterprise as this.

Who do you think the multitude of building societies was lending money to if it wasn’t ordinary workers wanting to buy houses?

Some sort of historical myth has grown out of the right to buy scheme.

Sounds almost identical to my Dad, who bought his first house in 1971 for £3,500. He grew up on New Parks, went New Parks Boys, not the brightest academically & followed his Dad into hosiery - working for Corah.

After over 30 years working for Corah, he had to find a new career as the the hosiery trade went tits up & he was made redundant in the late 90's. Fortunately for him, I had a reasonably good job with Royal Mail & I was able to get him a job as a postman.....otherwise, I don't know what he would have done?

The option to own a home was always there, like you say. However, I do think that people were prepared to make bigger sacrifices then than people are prepared to make now. I certainly never grew up in poverty, but we (& the families around us) did everything they could to save money. We didn't have 'luxuries' & we never expected all the little things that people seem unable to live without nowadays.........Sky, Playstation, take-aways, designer clothes, etc. (I'm just as guilty!!!) If it wasn't 'needed'.....we didn't have it.

The Right-to-Buy was an excellent opportunity for a single generation of people who were able to cash in. Each generation since then has been paying the price. Private landlords, Housing Associations & bankers continue to do well.......but unless you have a fairly well paid job - you're screwed!!

[Alf Bentley]

The text of Ed Miliband's speech yesterday, for anyone who's interested:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/10/margaret-thatcher-tributes-ed-miliband-speech

Quite thoughtful and well-judged, it seems to me. Very difficult to get the balance right - to recognise the great hostility to her policies among many of his own supporters, but to be respectful to those who admired her or some of her impact, and to do so without it seeming like meaningless, dishonest fence-sitting. I've no idea whether he'll end up being seen as leadership material in future, but he does seem quite shrewd in some of his judgments. I think the Tories would be wise not to under-estimate him.

[Rincewind]

Ode to an Iron Lady

Some may celebrate the passing

of an Iron Lady

Some may pay her homage

But I'll remember her best

when appearing

on Spitting Image.

[leicsmac]

Yes and those cash cows will in turn be passed on to the sons and daughters of those first time buyers. Before Thatcher came along very few working class people could get a mortgage , she made councils give the right to buy houses that had been paid for over and over again by the renters who did not even own the toilet seat they sat on.

Then ask yourself where did all that rent money go when the actual house had been paid for ten times over ? not on maintinace for sure. Once Labour got back in they made sure the working class could not get too big for their boots and dare to be self sufficient and would soon fall back into the arms of the socialist nanny state. Blairs " New Labour " just coasted on what the Tories had done until they had to come up with their own ideas. And we all know what happened then.

Looks like many posters above have made my point regarding RTB for me.

And do you seriously think social mobility and self-sufficiency varies that much under different kinds of Government? These days the political class are all the same - out of touch - and that's why most people hold them in contempt.

[Zingari]

Sounds almost identical to my Dad, who bought his first house in 1971 for £3,500. He grew up on New Parks, went New Parks Boys, not the brightest academically & followed his Dad into hosiery - working for Corah.

After over 30 years working for Corah, he had to find a new career as the the hosiery trade went tits up & he was made redundant in the late 90's. Fortunately for him, I had a reasonably good job with Royal Mail & I was able to get him a job as a postman.....otherwise, I don't know what he would have done?

The option to own a home was always there, like you say. However, I do think that people were prepared to make bigger sacrifices then than people are prepared to make now. I certainly never grew up in poverty, but we (& the families around us) did everything they could to save money. We didn't have 'luxuries' & we never expected all the little things that people seem unable to live without nowadays.........Sky, Playstation, take-aways, designer clothes, etc. (I'm just as guilty!!!) If it wasn't 'needed'.....we didn't have it.

The Right-to-Buy was an excellent opportunity for a single generation of people who were able to cash in. Each generation since then has been paying the price. Private landlords, Housing Associations & bankers continue to do well.......but unless you have a fairly well paid job - you're screwed!!

I often used to pop into Corah’s etc in the 70’s to check the fire alarms etc and it was a fookin nightmare with some of the girls and women in there .

They did their best to cause greatest embarrassment to me and got up to all sorts of tricks.

The girls at Nabisco Frears on Woodgate were the worst for this though .

I got a few decent dates out of it though.

I dunno how your dad coped with it daily

[Jon the Hat]

You’re wrong there; it was very easy to get a mortgage provided you’d made some effort to save up a deposit of around 10%, and could prove you had the means to pay it off.

Building societies had some sort of standard formula for working this out based on your wage what mortgage you could get, but I can’t remember what it was .

I bought my first house when I was about 20 and on quite a low wage as a blue collar worker .It was a modest terraced house and it cost me £3,500, which was about the average price in Leicester in the early 70’s.

I got no help to do this from any other source

I got a couple of mates to live in as lodgers and charged them a tenner a week all inc. and I practically lived rent free for years, and had plenty of money for a social life etc

I think it would be much harder for a young person these days to undertake even such a modest enterprise as this.

Who do you think the multitude of building societies was lending money to if it wasn’t ordinary workers wanting to buy houses?

Some sort of historical myth has grown out of the right to buy scheme.

Ah I see, and is this utopia why was there council housing??

[Zingari]

Ah I see, and is this utopia why was there council housing??

No of course not , it was just a better balance in the housing market really.( My opinion anyway)

Many families actively chose to take on council houses rather than buy because it was relatively stress

free , (no repairs , decorations insurance etc)

And of course a 50's council house was probably better than a Victorian terrace and probably had a garden etc

The myth I'm trying to dispel is that of working people being unable to afford to buy houses prior to the Thatcher era .

We weren't .It was much easier to buy then than now IMO

[_Fatboyslow_]

No of course not , it was just a better balance in the housing market really.( My opinion anyway)

Many families actively chose to take on council houses rather than buy because it was relatively stress

free , (no repairs , decorations insurance etc)

And of course a 50's council house was probably better than a Victorian terrace and probably had a garden etc

The myth I'm trying to dispel is that of working people being unable to afford to buy houses prior to the Thatcher era .

We weren't .It was much easier to buy then than now IMO

You really don't understand why the houses were built in the first place do you ?

There is no myth, just some talking heads who have not got a clue.

And a lot of folk would have liked the choice to buy, as in a job, a future, is it wrong to give a little help and support ? Do you l know how it feels to lose all you have ever had despite doing as asked ?

Anyone got a link for "boys from the black stuff" ?

[Zingari]

You really don't understand why the houses were built in the first place do you ?

There is no myth, just some talking heads who have not got a clue.

I believe they were built as a remedy to the post war slum clearance .

There seems to be a myth ( among some posters) that the great unwashed were unable to be house owners until they were liberated by Thatcher in the 80s

[_Fatboyslow_]

I believe they were built as a remedy to the post war slum clearance .

There seems to be a myth ( among some posters) that the great unwashed were unable to be house owners until they were liberated by Thatcher in the 80s

As I said earlier 20% and saving for 2 years. A phone was luxury.

The only myth is Thatcher's housing owning share dealing democracy.

[flowwolf]

Just like to point out that a few of the people lauding Thatcher for RTB are the same people complaining about councils renting out expensive / large houses to small families a few threads back.

Where the **** do you think our one and two bedroom housing stock went?

You would be best to ask that question of all the Labour run councils across the country who went on to squander all the money they got from the right to buy.

[flowwolf]

No of course not , it was just a better balance in the housing market really.( My opinion anyway)

Many families actively chose to take on council houses rather than buy because it was relatively stress

free , (no repairs , decorations insurance etc)

And of course a 50's council house was probably better than a Victorian terrace and probably had a garden etc

The myth I'm trying to dispel is that of working people being unable to afford to buy houses prior to the Thatcher era .

We weren't .It was much easier to buy then than now IMO

If you went to get a mortgage in 1979 as my wife and I did you were told that although the male earned enough they would not take into account the wifes wages as they assumed she would not be working for too long due to having children. As for couples opting for council housing yes I agree it was the easy option. No maintinance and if you were out of work the tax payer would pick up your rent via benifits and no way would you loose the roof over your head.

At least the right to buy broke a lot of people away from that level of thinking and made them less likely to become nanny state dependant. Over night council house buyers took pride in their houses and improved and maintained them better than any council , they had something to show for their work effort and something to pass on to their children. Make no mistake it was a monumental shift in working class attitudes and reverbarates to this day.

[Deucalion]

[Manwell Pablo]

She hasn't got a state funeral....

Would be happy if she gets one......day off.

[Guest Bilo]

Manwell beat me to it.

I do agree that Attlee is the best postwar PM we've ever had though.

[Deucalion]

That version is well documented. However, if the Belgrano was the risk it was claimed then why was it not sunk the day before, when it was sailing TOWARDS the task force. The Conqueror had been tracking the Belgrano for 36 hours and was sailing AWAY rom the taskforce and its captain was well aware of this. That's why he asked for confirmation from London 3 times to torpedo his target. All these facts came out later and John Nott and his cronies official version were found to have misled the nation and riddled with downright lies.

I thought the Belgrano was heading into shallow water south of the Falklands, meaning Conqueror might lose contact with it. Regardless of which way it was sailing when it was attacked, surely, while it remained to the south of the Falklands, it could come back into play.

I don't know why they waited 36 hours to decide to attack. Maybe the British government still hoped the show of force would force the Argentinian hand? Or maybe the fact Conqueror could not guarantee maintaining contact forced a decision? Or, it could be as you say, and a final decision to make the war 'hot' had been made. However, by this point, hadn't an Argentine submarine and gunboat been attacked off South Georgia? Shooting had already started.

Another thing. Why is there sympathy for the Argentine sailors aboard Belgrano but not the British sailors aboard Sheffield, which was attacked the next day?

[l444ry]

I believe they were built as a remedy to the post war slum clearance .

There seems to be a myth ( among some posters) that the great unwashed were unable to be house owners until they were liberated by Thatcher in the 80s

Well said Zingari. Labour Councils were selling stock off well before Thatcher came on the scene. The difference was that the Tories barred local councils from using the receipts to rebuild for political reasons.

[Guest Bilo]

Another thing. Why is there sympathy for the Argentine sailors aboard Belgrano but not the British sailors aboard Sheffield, which was attacked the next day?

Only a Thatcherite would ask such a question.

The Belgrano sinking was Thatcher's fault and so was the Sheffield. The fact that Gualtieri ordered the unprovoked and opportunistic invasion of the Falklands in the first place is irrelevant, he is utterly blameless.

[Deucalion]

She hasn't got a state funeral....

Good point. I didn't make the thing, just copied it from Facebook.

Other than the mistake, it makes it's point well I feel.

[Deucalion]

Only a Thatcherite would ask such a question.

The Belgrano sinking was Thatcher's fault and so was the Sheffield. The fact that Gualtieri ordered the unprovoked and opportunistic invasion of the Falklands in the first place is irrelevant, he is utterly blameless.

I agree both things were Thatcher's fault.

I don't agree the invasion of the Falklands was unprovoked. It was provoked by insincere diplomacy, the Falkland Islanders being refused British citizenship by the Thatcher government in 1981, a failure to listen to intelligence, defence cuts and the scrapping of the Endeavor.

Basically, Thatcher's government appeared totally unconcerned about the Falklands at a time when Argentina appeared more aggressive towards them. It was a massive mistake.

I have highlighted earlier how in 1977 Labour leader James Callaghan handled a similar situation much better. Not many people know about this because 1000 people didn't die as a result of his decisions.

[l444ry]

Only a Thatcherite would ask such a question.

The Belgrano sinking was Thatcher's fault and so was the Sheffield. The fact that Gualtieri ordered the unprovoked and opportunistic invasion of the Falklands in the first place is irrelevant, he is utterly blameless.

Of course Galtieri has to be the main cause but surely it's not as black and white as that Bilo.

They tried it on because they assumed Thatcher's government wasn't interested in the Falklands. The Tories had reduced the Naval presence in the area and Nicholas Ridley was preparing a leaseback arrangement with Argentina.

Also, the Argentinians has designs on an invasion during the previous Callaghan Labour regime. David Owen dispatched a nuclear submarine and warned them that they had better not!

So Thatcher has to shoulder some blame, if not only from supreme incompetence.