General Chat

I certainly don't agree, Ann. Thatcher made no exceptions.

There are people who find themselves in situations not of their own making and they are unable to extricate themselves for one of many reasons.

They may not have the ability through physical or mental disablement to look after themselves. They may be children leaving care with no one to look out for them and nowhere to go. They may be elderly people with no family to care for them or help them through any difficulties.

There *is* such a thing as society and it is society that looks after those unable to or incapable of looking after themselves, and so it should.

""I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. "

I think THAT may be the poisonous bit? it's all in the subtext ;-) I don't remember 'society'...or "people", pre-Thatcher as being like that, I remember lots of hard working people who were hard working before Mrs T , hard working during Mrs T and hard working after, and they didn't feel entitled ( edit... to anything they did not have a right to be 'entitled' to!)

What Thatcher did, to my mind, was support the 'greed is good,look after number one and to hell with those less fortunate or able ' mentality, that we've paid the price for since.

Now there, i said I wasn't going to be nasty about her.... lol, but that IS restrained :-D

Too right, Rose.

Guinevere, "If you think it's naive to believe that parties create policies in order to gain votes then you really don't understand politicians."

I never said that they don't make policies to gain votes,

I said that the policy of right to buy was not designed to get people voting Tory, It was both to inspire people to better themselves and the reality was that we had councils who could no longer afford to maintain the housing stock they already had

Roy

We'll have to agree to differ, Roy, can't agree with that in the slightest.

Quite interesting that on 'Homes under the hammer' on tv this morning was a property in my area, I know the general spot anyway, estate with social housing mostly, though some have been sold on.

It was an ex housing association, which they mentioned because it had a covenant restricting structural changes. I'm assuming that the seller was the Housing association...though it may have changed hands before...but the point being it was in need of quite a bit of updating ( kitchen bath, windows etc) .
I wonder if it is just cheaper to sell property like that to a property investor and for it to be done up and rented out for the higher rent.... or whether the govt should be looking into making sure repair of existing council or HA property can be funded so that the properties stay in the social housing stock ?

Guinevere, As you say we will have to agree to disagree but the quote you posted was an edited version of her interview which was published on 31 October 1987

Here is the full version of what she said from the actual interview on the 23 Sept 1987

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

here is a sample

Douglas Keay, Woman's Own


Prime Minister

What is wrong with the deterioration? I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and[fo 29] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”

There is also something else I should say to them: “If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit.”

But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society.[fo 30] There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty.

How do you set about teaching a child religion at school, God is like a father, and she thinks “like someone who has been cruel to them?” It is those children you cannot ... you just have to try to say they can only learn from school or we as their neighbour have to try in some way to compensate. This is why my foremost charity has always been the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, because over a century ago when it was started, it was hoped that the need for it would dwindle to nothing and over a hundred years later the need for it is greater, because we now realise that the great problems in life are not those of housing and food and standard of living. When we have[fo 31] got all of those, when we have got reasonable housing when you compare us with other countries, when you have got a reasonable standard of living and you have got no-one who is hungry or need be hungry, when you have got an education system that teaches everyone—not as good as we would wish—you are left with what? You are left with the problems of human nature, and a child who has not had what we and many of your readers would regard as their birthright—a good home—it is those that we have to get out and help, and you know, it is not only a question of money as everyone will tell you; not your background in society. It is a question of human nature and for those children it is difficult to say: “You are responsible for your behaviour!” because they just have not had a chance and so I think that is one of the biggest problems and I think it is the greatest sin.



Roy

Can't see that makes any difference to what I said, Roy. You obviously do not read her words in the same way as Rose and I do.

Your enormous C&P just adds to my observation of her.

Poisonous words, poisonous woman.

Your opinion and your entitled to it, just as i'm entitled to my opinion, so at least we can agree to disagree

Roy

Not sold by Tories for votes!!!

Westminster Council and Dame Shirley Porter springs to mind.

And the orginal idea was that the money made by selling of the housing stock was to go toward building new social housing and upgrade the stock that was kept. That happened everywhere didn't it?

I live in South London in one of London's poorest boroughs Greenwich, which may seem odd as Greenwich itself is quite pleasant, however, I live in Plumstead which is part of Woolwich, Woolwich is a god awful place. And I grew up at the Elephant & Castle, so if I think Woolwich is bad it really must be. But I digress, the social housing here is pretty poor. Quite a lot of high rise blocks, which are not 'user friendly' and many blocks which are truly unsightly on the outside, god alone knows what they look like inside (not a comment on the people who live in them but the design).

I consider myself very lucky my home is quite near to Plumstead Common and the area I live in is very pleasant, and I own my own home. Not through right to buy, I started out in a little flat which I bought through shared ownership with a housing association.

However, in todays market I would not ever be able to buy. In fact I do not know if I would even be able to rent in London at all.

Sorry if this rambles a bit, but am thinking and typing on the hoof.

As a society I do feel that we have an obligation to look after those who are less fortunate. And remember that in the current climate many of those of us who are in work are often little more than a couple of pay packets away from destitution.

Sits firmly on hands :-D

So anyway back to the topic at hand....

I said that a few posts back, Roy.

*joins Rose in sitting on hands*

Sorry my above post is not in response to yours PigletsPal, I posted at the same time :-) .. I would agree with you on your observations re the area and housing in Woolwich, as well as the prices. What my friend in Greenwich is selling her house for would buy 3 quite good houses here :-0 or even 6 like mine lol.

edit apologies for grammar there!

PP you said that without mentioning the name Horace Cutler :-0

I too feel that we have an obligation to look after those who are less fortunate,

I believe that Margaret Thatcher also believed in looking after the less fortunate But she just highlighted the fact that many who could have helped themselves did not and thought all their problems where the fault/responsibility of government and thats just wrong, I will help anyone but i refuse to help those who refuse to help themselves, Those who for other reasons are temporarily out of work or for medical reasons who carnt help themselves then we all should do what we can for them,

I'm not going to sit on my hands, I have dinner to cook

Roy

Everybody keeps mentioning social housing.

Question......What is un-social housing. ??


F.

Good point Frederick, Fact is their just is not enough housing of what ever type 1,2,3,4 bedrooms regardless of whether social or private, If people had not had the right to buy their council house does that mean they would now be homeless? or would they be tenants in council houses? either way their still are not enough housing affordable or otherwise, As i said earlier 2 decades have past and government both labour and conservatives have done nothing to resolve the situation

Roy

Edit, UK increased by 4.1 million (7 per cent) between 2001 and 2011 according to the census's
I thought the census was an important part of governments planning for the future? So what happened or was Thatcher also to blame for the increase of 4.1 million in the population.

I agree that social housing should never have been sold off. Although there were some families who had lived in their council houses for years and had paid rent, some of these families were quite capable of buying on the open market but chose to buy their council house because of the generous discounts and the fact that they were superior to many private properties at that time.

I consider Mrs Thatcher used the opportunity to buy as a vote catcher.

I do agree with many of the posters, before starting a programme of social house building, look at what is currently available and unoccupied, look at what the population needs, more user friendly properties for the elderly and smaller properties for those who wish or are niow being forced to downsize.

I do agree there is a problem with immigrant families who in some cases have large families and therefore will get preferential treatment but also British families also who take preference over the childless couple and the single person. .

Vera

I am amazed that anyone liked Mrs Thatcher. She was the one person who wrecked Britain. Not only that, she spawned Major, Blair and Cameron in her mould (don't count the other one as he was never Prime Ministerial material). So we have had 30 years of this destructibe "Thatcherism" now from boteh major parties.

Once Thatcher pushed herself into power, she systematically destroyed everything good about Britain and promoted all sorts of unproductive men who wanted to make a fast buck. Greed of politicians is her fault, lack of proper social housing now is her fault.

I can't wait to read a proper "warts and all" biography of her once she had shed the mortal.

Sorry Roy and others. But we must agree to differ.

Fact: From 2001 to 2011 the price of the average home increased by 94%, while wages rose by just 29%, according to the NHF

So how (unless you have a house to sell) is the average person going to be able to afford a house? Very few new buyers will be able to get on the housing ladder.

Osborne's plan just ensures more crippling debt - to the Government - if you try to buy.

So, is more social housing needed? YES.
...and one bedroomed places are useless. They have a limited occupancy.

John, Britain was wrecked before Thatcher, anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial of the facts

And what was the driving force behind the 94% hype in house prices? dodgy Finance for which our grandchildren will be paying the price in years to come,

Roy