hibs.net Messageboard

 

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 267
  1. #121
    @hibs.net private member Hibernia&Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ma bit
    Posts
    9,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Doddie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I own my house and car. Who did I steal them from?
    Proudhon was alluding to the rentier class - landlords - in his famous work. He wasn't talking about those who buy a home to live in themselves.
    HIBERNIAN FC - ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY SINCE 1875


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Proudhon was alluding to the rentier class - landlords - in his famous work. He wasn't talking about those who buy a home to live in themselves.
    I agree. Rich people inherit a house and put it up for rent which covers the majority of the rent on their own home and takes one out the market. Next generation of the family does the same and it grows and grows and grows. Eventually the landlords are more plentiful than owners and can charge what they want for rent not allowing the poorer section of society to buy anything

  4. #123
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    47
    Posts
    19,239
    Quote Originally Posted by samcrowe View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I agree. Rich people inherit a house and put it up for rent which covers the majority of the rent on their own home and takes one out the market. Next generation of the family does the same and it grows and grows and grows. Eventually the landlords are more plentiful than owners and can charge what they want for rent not allowing the poorer section of society to buy anything
    You're describing Marchmont

  5. #124
    @hibs.net private member Hibernia&Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ma bit
    Posts
    9,002
    Quote Originally Posted by samcrowe View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I agree. Rich people inherit a house and put it up for rent which covers the majority of the rent on their own home and takes one out the market. Next generation of the family does the same and it grows and grows and grows. Eventually the landlords are more plentiful than owners and can charge what they want for rent not allowing the poorer section of society to buy anything
    Indeed. Concentration of wealth (and thus power) is inherent in capitalism and self-perpetuating, as those at the top make money from money. Today the richest 300 people in the world have wealth equivalent to the bottom 3.5 billion, yet anyone who says this isn't acceptable is decried as a crank and a utopian.
    HIBERNIAN FC - ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY SINCE 1875

  6. #125
    Testimonial Due Geo_1875's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In my Joy Division Oven Gloves
    Posts
    4,060
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yeah, and millions of working class people got the opportunity to own their own home for the first time.
    Yeah, and at a discounted price which didn't allow for the replacement of social rented housing creating the market for private landlords thrive.

  7. #126
    @hibs.net private member Hibernia&Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ma bit
    Posts
    9,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo_1875 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yeah, and at a discounted price which didn't allow for the replacement of social rented housing creating the market for private landlords thrive.
    And some very unscrupulous private landlords, to whom profit maximisation was far more important than the living conditions of their tenants. Then there's the issue of a million people in temporary accommodation for lack of public housing. Selling off council homes on the cheap did nothing for future generations who need them.
    HIBERNIAN FC - ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY SINCE 1875

  8. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And some very unscrupulous private landlords, to whom profit maximisation was far more important than the living conditions of their tenants. Then there's the issue of a million people in temporary accommodation for lack of public housing. Selling off council homes on the cheap did nothing for future generations who need them.
    You could apply the sentiments of your last sentence to a lot of decisions many boomers made and supported. A generation who were afforded opportunities their forefathers could only have dreamed of and they constantly love to pull the ladder up behind them.

    Pensions - We have them, they must be guaranteed for us at all costs. For you? Unaffordable and we need to have a serious discussion.

    Social housing - We had it, we bought it. For you? How dare you try and damage my equity, why should taxpayers fund housebuilding projects?

    Private housing - We had the chance to buy in pretty favourable conditions. We took what we wanted rather than what we needed. You? Work harder, if you can't afford a house it's because you are lazy or expect too much.

    Free higher education - We had it. You? Unaffordable. If you want an education saddle yourselves with tens of thousands of pounds of debt.

    I'm delighted the millenianal generation finally appears to be finding some courage to fight back. There's a group of people between about 14 and 25 who have spent a large chunk of their lives living in austerity through no fault of their own but are saddled with the consequences and told if they dare to have aspirations they are spoiled and pampered. No wonder they have had enough.

  9. #128
    @hibs.net private member Hibernia&Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ma bit
    Posts
    9,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Pretty Boy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You could apply the sentiments of your last sentence to a lot of decisions many boomers made and supported. A generation who were afforded opportunities their forefathers could only have dreamed of and they constantly love to pull the ladder up behind them.

    Pensions - We have them, they must be guaranteed for us at all costs. For you? Unaffordable and we need to have a serious discussion.

    Social housing - We had it, we bought it. For you? How dare you try and damage my equity, why should taxpayers fund housebuilding projects?

    Private housing - We had the chance to buy in pretty favourable conditions. We took what we wanted rather than what we needed. You? Work harder, if you can't afford a house it's because you are lazy or expect too much.

    Free higher education - We had it. You? Unaffordable. If you want an education saddle yourselves with tens of thousands of pounds of debt.

    I'm delighted the millenian generation finally appears to be finding some courage to fight back. There's a group of people between about 14 and 25 who have spent a large chunk of their lives living in austerity through no fault of their own but saddled with the consequences and told if they dare to have aspirations they are spoiled and pampered. No wonder they have had enough.


    A generation which benefitted hugely from post war collectivism of full employment, free university, final salary pensions etc then, when their generation became the political establishment, kicked it all away from the next generation. Now it's zero hour contracts, unaffordable housing, indebted students. A great opportunity squandered by rampant individualism and short-sightedness. They got the best of everything then decided they didn't want to pay when it was their turn.

    To me such people are Uncle Toms.
    Last edited by Hibernia&Alba; 22-12-2017 at 12:11 PM.
    HIBERNIAN FC - ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY SINCE 1875

  10. #129
    Coaching Staff stu in nottingham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Redhill, Nottingham
    Posts
    7,505
    Quote Originally Posted by Pretty Boy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You could apply the sentiments of your last sentence to a lot of decisions many boomers made and supported. A generation who were afforded opportunities their forefathers could only have dreamed of and they constantly love to pull the ladder up behind them.

    Pensions - We have them, they must be guaranteed for us at all costs. For you? Unaffordable and we need to have a serious discussion.

    Social housing - We had it, we bought it. For you? How dare you try and damage my equity, why should taxpayers fund housebuilding projects?

    Private housing - We had the chance to buy in pretty favourable conditions. We took what we wanted rather than what we needed. You? Work harder, if you can't afford a house it's because you are lazy or expect too much.

    Free higher education - We had it. You? Unaffordable. If you want an education saddle yourselves with tens of thousands of pounds of debt.

    I'm delighted the millenian generation finally appears to be finding some courage to fight back. There's a group of people between about 14 and 25 who have spent a large chunk of their lives living in austerity through no fault of their own but saddled with the consequences and told if they dare to have aspirations they are spoiled and pampered. No wonder they have had enough.

    I can't really fault or argue with much that you're saying there.

    And do you know what, this generation would have reacted exactly the same given those circumstances.

  11. #130
    @hibs.net private member snooky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Down East
    Posts
    11,780
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Pretty Boy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You could apply the sentiments of your last sentence to a lot of decisions many boomers made and supported. A generation who were afforded opportunities their forefathers could only have dreamed of and they constantly love to pull the ladder up behind them.

    Pensions - We have them, they must be guaranteed for us at all costs. For you? Unaffordable and we need to have a serious discussion.

    Social housing - We had it, we bought it. For you? How dare you try and damage my equity, why should taxpayers fund housebuilding projects?

    Private housing - We had the chance to buy in pretty favourable conditions. We took what we wanted rather than what we needed. You? Work harder, if you can't afford a house it's because you are lazy or expect too much.

    Free higher education - We had it. You? Unaffordable. If you want an education saddle yourselves with tens of thousands of pounds of debt.

    I'm delighted the millenianal generation finally appears to be finding some courage to fight back. There's a group of people between about 14 and 25 who have spent a large chunk of their lives living in austerity through no fault of their own but are saddled with the consequences and told if they dare to have aspirations they are spoiled and pampered. No wonder they have had enough.
    Even though I'm an 'Uncle Tom, I agree with all of the above.
    We thought we could change the world and make it a better place for everyone. Instead we created the same monsters that have led nations into the abyss since history began.

  12. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by Doddie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Dislike of incomers isn't necessarily prejudice. There's sometimes a very good reason for it.
    Disliking imcomers when you don’t know them or anything about them is prejudice. Just because a previous incomer or two was a **** doesn’t make it alright to dislike them all.

    To see my point, substitute ‘immigrant’ for ‘incomer’.

  13. #132
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo_1875 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yeah, and at a discounted price which didn't allow for the replacement of social rented housing creating the market for private landlords thrive.
    A discounted price that reflected their years of rent i believe?

    Surely its a classic bit of state redistribution that gabe millions of working class people a huge boost?

  14. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by Pretty Boy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You could apply the sentiments of your last sentence to a lot of decisions many boomers made and supported. A generation who were afforded opportunities their forefathers could only have dreamed of and they constantly love to pull the ladder up behind them.

    Pensions - We have them, they must be guaranteed for us at all costs. For you? Unaffordable and we need to have a serious discussion.

    Social housing - We had it, we bought it. For you? How dare you try and damage my equity, why should taxpayers fund housebuilding projects?

    Private housing - We had the chance to buy in pretty favourable conditions. We took what we wanted rather than what we needed. You? Work harder, if you can't afford a house it's because you are lazy or expect too much.

    Free higher education - We had it. You? Unaffordable. If you want an education saddle yourselves with tens of thousands of pounds of debt.

    I'm delighted the millenianal generation finally appears to be finding some courage to fight back. There's a group of people between about 14 and 25 who have spent a large chunk of their lives living in austerity through no fault of their own but are saddled with the consequences and told if they dare to have aspirations they are spoiled and pampered. No wonder they have had enough.
    In reply to your pensions point. My dad will retire at 55 with a good pension. I have the same job and will work 12 years longer than him and my pension will be 1/3 of his. That is me retiring in 46 years so adjust it for inflation if you want.

    Sums up the pension situation and this isn't an isolated example

  15. #134
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    47
    Posts
    19,239
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    A discounted price that reflected their years of rent i believe?

    Surely its a classic bit of state redistribution that gabe millions of working class people a huge boost?
    No it was a classic bit of flogging off vital housing stock. 40% of houses bought under right to buy are now private rents, which exposes the failure of the system. The new proposal of extending right to buy to housing associations is the last thing the country needs, and will further deplete the number of houses available to families.

  16. #135
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Pretty Boy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You could apply the sentiments of your last sentence to a lot of decisions many boomers made and supported. A generation who were afforded opportunities their forefathers could only have dreamed of and they constantly love to pull the ladder up behind them.

    Pensions - We have them, they must be guaranteed for us at all costs. For you? Unaffordable and we need to have a serious discussion.

    Social housing - We had it, we bought it. For you? How dare you try and damage my equity, why should taxpayers fund housebuilding projects?

    Private housing - We had the chance to buy in pretty favourable conditions. We took what we wanted rather than what we needed. You? Work harder, if you can't afford a house it's because you are lazy or expect too much.

    Free higher education - We had it. You? Unaffordable. If you want an education saddle yourselves with tens of thousands of pounds of debt.

    I'm delighted the millenianal generation finally appears to be finding some courage to fight back. There's a group of people between about 14 and 25 who have spent a large chunk of their lives living in austerity through no fault of their own but are saddled with the consequences and told if they dare to have aspirations they are spoiled and pampered. No wonder they have had enough.
    Its abfair argument, but im sure itncould be argues that they just happened to be in the right place at the right time. No much fun for our generation i grant you, but equally their parents and grandparents generation didnt exactly have it easy.

    They were a very lucky generation who rode the crest ofbthe wave. Demographics and the ever expending demands on the state (and the shrinking tax base) mean that it is far more difficult.

    I dont agree with the identity politics of millenials and baby boomers etc though, what generation acts with the best intersts of future generations in mind?

    Plus, many baby boomers were brought up in poverty unknown to our generation, including rationing, and many worked their way out of it without many ofnthe educatiobal and travel opportunities available tonour generation - who are we to grudge them it.

    I do often think our generation are the most self entitled generation there has ever been.

  17. #136
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,699
    Quote Originally Posted by hibsbollah View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No it was a classic bit of flogging off vital housing stock. 40% of houses bought under right to buy are now private rents, which exposes the failure of the system. The new proposal if extending right to buy to housing associations is the last thing the country needs, and will further deplete the number of houses available to families.
    So the state taking tax, and redistributing it via various weird and wonderful ways is a good thing. But the state allowing people to but their taxpayer funded houses and benefit from the wealth created is a bad thing.

    I agree they should either build more homes or work out a stronger way to regulate social housing, but lets face it, those on the left / extreme left hate the policy because it lifted millions out of poverty, stopped them being dependant on the state to the same extent, and created millions of new property owners. Its probably no coincidence that the UK hasnt elected a left-leaning govt the 30 years since.

  18. #137
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    47
    Posts
    19,239
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So the state taking tax, and redistributing it via various weird and wonderful ways is a good thing. But the state allowing people to but their taxpayer funded houses and benefit from the wealth created is a bad thing.

    I agree they should either build more homes or work out a stronger way to regulate social housing, but lets face it, those on the left / extreme left hate the policy because it lifted millions out of poverty, stopped them being dependant on the state to the same extent, and created millions of new property owners. Its probably no coincidence that the UK hasnt elected a left-leaning govt the 30 years since.
    So the left/extreme left hate policies that lift people out of poverty You're on very shaky ground there. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and charities like Shelter aren't radical left, why don't you listen to what they say about the consequences of right to buy? It's just not true that right to buy lifted millions out of poverty, can you provide some evidence for this extravagant claim?

  19. #138
    @hibs.net private member Hibernia&Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ma bit
    Posts
    9,002
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    A discounted price that reflected their years of rent i believe?

    Surely its a classic bit of state redistribution that gabe millions of working class people a huge boost?
    Some working class people, and that isn't what the council houses were built for. They were homes for families, not equity. As I said earlier, if Thatcher wanted to expand home ownership, she could have helped people get mortgages via a national investment bank, for example. Selling off homes which were paid for at taxpayer expense was not the answer. Those homes are now unavailable to families, many of whom are stuck in bed and breakfasts or at the mercy of private landlords whose motive is profit maximisation. We have children living out of suitcases, which is shameful. If Thatcher really cared about working class people, why did she forbid councils using the income from council house sales to build new council houses? No, it was an ideologically driven policy; she didn't give a damn about the needs of the country.
    HIBERNIAN FC - ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY SINCE 1875

  20. #139
    @hibs.net private member Hibernia&Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ma bit
    Posts
    9,002
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So the state taking tax, and redistributing it via various weird and wonderful ways is a good thing. But the state allowing people to but their taxpayer funded houses and benefit from the wealth created is a bad thing.

    I agree they should either build more homes or work out a stronger way to regulate social housing, but lets face it, those on the left / extreme left hate the policy because it lifted millions out of poverty, stopped them being dependant on the state to the same extent, and created millions of new property owners. Its probably no coincidence that the UK hasnt elected a left-leaning govt the 30 years since.
    Right, I'm losing my patience now. Selling off council houses did not lift millions out of poverty; where are you getting this? It's the same house, only my mortgage goes to the bank, rather than my rent going to the council. Now, however, the house will never be available to future families who cannot buy but instead goes to my kids upon my death. How exactly have I, the new homeowner, been lifted out of poverty here? My life is the exactly the same (it could well be worse now I don't have secure employment in Thatcher's Britain) and the nation's public housing stock has been reduced.
    HIBERNIAN FC - ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY SINCE 1875

  21. #140
    Coaching Staff NAE NOOKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Galashiels
    Posts
    10,013
    It depends on what you men by 'its soul' I suppose .... places change, some of it for the better and some of it for the worse, Edinburgh is no different I would imagine.

    Whatever it is Edinburgh is still one of the worlds great cities and that should be protected, especially when it comes to its architecture ... no I don't think every new building should look like the castle or the Balmoral hotel .... but what they shouldn't be is bland, that needs to be avoided at all costs.

    If you need an example in microcosm of a town losing its soul Galashiels is the poster boy. The small shops destroyed by two huge supermarkets built right in the town centre and since the 80s a massive loss of pubs in the town, it must be the only town of a similar size in Scotland where there isn't a singe boozer in the main street.

    Lost pubs from the town centre since 1980, though I'll admit some of them opened and closed since then:

    The Maxwell
    The Douglas
    The Royal hotel
    The Kings Hotel
    The Abbotsford
    The Talisman ... disco / club
    The Railway
    The Liberal club
    The Polish club
    The Privateer
    The Cuddy Green
    The Waverly bar
    The foundry
    Herge's bar
    The Bridge ..... closed recently

    Still open:

    The Salmon
    The Auld Mill
    The Golden Lion
    The Gluepot
    The Harrow
    Reivers Bar
    H2o
    Hunter's hall ... a Wetherspoons pub

    That's 8 pubs for a town of close to 20,000 people if you include Tweedbank ... no wonder the place lacks the vibrancy it had back in the day, especially at night.



    Thatcher's right to buy for Gala meant all the two and 3 bedroom houses in the 'nicer' areas being snapped up leaving nothing but the less desirable areas for the younger folk with families coming behind them and even there a chronic shortage of family homes available to rent from the local authority ... I live in one of the nicer areas, ironically in the street where I first rented a room when I came to work here in 1978 ... there is barely a single house still on the books of the social housing bodies here now, at that time they all were.

  22. #141
    @hibs.net private member speedy_gonzales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,543
    Personally, I don't think housing stock paid for and maintained through public monies should be sold of as once it goes private, then it's as good as gone forever as an amenity to the local authority (very rarely they are purchased back).
    However, maybe that's because I was brainwashed by my grandparents, (relatively) hard working mining stock from the coal fields of Midlothian & Fife they argued that weighing down a miner with the responsibility of a mortgage would make the workers more malleable to the firm hand of a Tory government. My maternal granddad from Mayfield always argued that those that broke the '84 strike were more likely to have had a mortgage than not.

  23. #142
    @hibs.net private member Hibernia&Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ma bit
    Posts
    9,002
    Quote Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Personally, I don't think housing stock paid for and maintained through public monies should be sold of as once it goes private, then it's as good as gone forever as an amenity to the local authority (very rarely they are purchased back).
    However, maybe that's because I was brainwashed by my grandparents, (relatively) hard working mining stock from the coal fields of Midlothian & Fife they argued that weighing down a miner with the responsibility of a mortgage would make the workers more malleable to the firm hand of a Tory government. My maternal granddad from Mayfield always argued that those that broke the '84 strike were more likely to have had a mortgage than not.
    The Tory government of the eighties certainly believed that homeowners were more likely to vote for them than tenants, as they freely admit. They also believed that saddling people with debt would make them more compliant and less likely to strike, for example, hence the economic policy of credit boom of the eighties. Tony Benn always made that point and he was right: people up to their eyes in debt are too afraid to rock the boat and stand up for their rights. I'm sure your grandparents would remember Thatcher calling miners 'the enemy within'; disgraceful.
    HIBERNIAN FC - ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY SINCE 1875

  24. #143
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,699
    Quote Originally Posted by hibsbollah View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So the left/extreme left hate policies that lift people out of poverty You're on very shaky ground there. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and charities like Shelter aren't radical left, why don't you listen to what they say about the consequences of right to buy? It's just not true that right to buy lifted millions out of poverty, can you provide some evidence for this extravagant claim?
    I was asking the question. Was that policy not redistributive? Tax spenlding funnelled into helping people to buy their own home and secure their futures?

    Some evidence? Nah, other than what i saw with my own eyes, in my own family, no. Is there any evidence that i could present, even if i could be bothered looking for it, that woyld change your view? I suspect not.

    I dont feel the need to evidence it, it was a hugely popular policy, that saw thatcher win lots of votes in multiple elections, many in traditional working class areas amd which has contributed to the left wing being politically hobbled in this country amd not winning an election since the mid-70s. Seems like it was a very successful policy.

    Rising living standards, the growth of the middle class and what i saw with my own eyes in my own city, would also lead me to believe it was a good thing, which i suppose brings us back to tge essence of this thread. From what i habe seen in my lifetime, it seems that people take a lot more pride and care over a home when they own it than they ever did when it was rented.

  25. #144
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Some working class people, and that isn't what the council houses were built for. They were homes for families, not equity. As I said earlier, if Thatcher wanted to expand home ownership, she could have helped people get mortgages via a national investment bank, for example. Selling off homes which were paid for at taxpayer expense was not the answer. Those homes are now unavailable to families, many of whom are stuck in bed and breakfasts or at the mercy of private landlords whose motive is profit maximisation. We have children living out of suitcases, which is shameful. If Thatcher really cared about working class people, why did she forbid councils using the income from council house sales to build new council houses? No, it was an ideologically driven policy; she didn't give a damn about the needs of the country.
    Most policies are ideologically driven, thats the whole point! In the same waynthat those on the left are ideologically committed to state ownership and even socialism. And she did give a damn about what the country wanted / needed (i accept they may be two difderent things at times) because all politicians do, otherwise they lose elections. And no politician wants to lose elections.

  26. #145
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    47
    Posts
    19,239
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I was asking the question. Was that policy not redistributive? Tax spenlding funnelled into helping people to buy their own home and secure their futures?

    Some evidence? Nah, other than what i saw with my own eyes, in my own family, no. Is there any evidence that i could present, even if i could be bothered looking for it, that woyld change your view? I suspect not.

    I dont feel the need to evidence it, it was a hugely popular policy, that saw thatcher win lots of votes in multiple elections, many in traditional working class areas amd which has contributed to the left wing being politically hobbled in this country amd not winning an election since the mid-70s. Seems like it was a very successful policy.

    Rising living standards, the growth of the middle class and what i saw with my own eyes in my own city, would also lead me to believe it was a good thing, which i suppose brings us back to tge essence of this thread. From what i habe seen in my lifetime, it seems that people take a lot more pride and care over a home when they own it than they ever did when it was rented.
    No evidence provided. Fine, just so as we know

  27. #146
    @hibs.net private member Hibernia&Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ma bit
    Posts
    9,002
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I was asking the question. Was that policy not redistributive? Tax spenlding funnelled into helping people to buy their own home and secure their futures?

    Some evidence? Nah, other than what i saw with my own eyes, in my own family, no. Is there any evidence that i could present, even if i could be bothered looking for it, that woyld change your view? I suspect not.

    I dont feel the need to evidence it, it was a hugely popular policy, that saw thatcher win lots of votes in multiple elections, many in traditional working class areas amd which has contributed to the left wing being politically hobbled in this country amd not winning an election since the mid-70s. Seems like it was a very successful policy.

    Rising living standards, the growth of the middle class and what i saw with my own eyes in my own city
    , would also lead me to believe it was a good thing, which i suppose brings us back to tge essence of this thread. From what i habe seen in my lifetime, it seems that people take a lot more pride and care over a home when they own it than they ever did when it was rented.
    How hard were you looking? Did you notice 3.5 million unemployed, even after fiddled unemployment figures? Did you notice the massive increase in child poverty? Did you notice the explosion in inequality? Did you notice inner-city decay and the breakdown of society? Did you notice the NHS waiting lists? Did you notice the tripling of crime between 1979 and 1997? Did you notice the schools that were falling down? Did you see the despair, the drugs, the suicides, the collapse of families?
    HIBERNIAN FC - ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY SINCE 1875

  28. #147
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Right, I'm losing my patience now. Selling off council houses did not lift millions out of poverty; where are you getting this? It's the same house, only my mortgage goes to the bank, rather than my rent going to the council. Now, however, the house will never be available to future families who cannot buy but instead goes to my kids upon my death. How exactly have I, the new homeowner, been lifted out of poverty here? My life is the exactly the same (it could well be worse now I don't have secure employment in Thatcher's Britain) and the nation's public housing stock has been reduced.
    Because you now own an asset. You can libe in it, you can sell it, you can pass it on to your kids or grandkids.

    Of course that makes people better off.

  29. #148
    @hibs.net private member Hibernia&Alba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ma bit
    Posts
    9,002
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Because you now own an asset. You can libe in it, you can sell it, you can pass it on to your kids or grandkids.

    Of course that makes people better off.
    And how have I been lifted out of poverty? I live in the same house, only now I don't have a job because there are four million unemployed and the estate is filled with drugs and crime.
    HIBERNIAN FC - ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY SINCE 1875

  30. #149
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,699
    Quote Originally Posted by hibsbollah View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No evidence provided. Fine, just so as we know
    How many elections did Thatcher lose again? Surely such vitriol and unpopularity must habe meant she was booted from office pretty quick smart and did terribly at the polls?

    And your evidence that people wernt made better off by becoming home owners is...?

    So this thread started with people complaining that swarms of southerners and incomers where pushing house prices out of the reach of native edinburghers. Something that got you all agitated.

    And now you are arguing against a policy thay brought home ownership into the grasp of millions of working class people. The very thing this thread has been lamenting.

  31. #150
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    47
    Posts
    19,239
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How many elections did Thatcher lose again? Surely such vitriol and unpopularity must habe meant she was booted from office pretty quick smart and did terribly at the polls?

    And your evidence that people wernt made better off by becoming home owners is...?

    So this thread started with people complaining that swarms of southerners and incomers where pushing house prices out of the reach of native edinburghers. Something that got you all agitated.

    And now you are arguing against a policy thay brought home ownership into the grasp of millions of working class people. The very thing this thread has been lamenting.
    My question is still out there. If you want to provide evidence we can debate that anytime.

    It was quite an interesting thread about the dynamics of Edinburgh as a city until you brought your radical right wing politics into it

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2012 All Rights Reserved