5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Did homeownership not skyrocket in the '80s and '90s?

Yep and it also had unintended consequences of a housing shortage nightmare since all the council houses were bought out.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

That's why I said everyone should live in government housing. Why should only the rich get to own homes?

Lots and lots and lots of people who are not rich own their own homes.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Now you're trolling, make up your mind, are you going to troll or deflect?

Do you want more people in government housing or in their own homes?

Both would be ideal, let the hierarchy fall into line.

1 minute ago, FriendlyHorse said:

Yep and it also had unintended consequences of a housing shortage nightmare since all the council houses were bought out.

Were they not occupied when they were purchased?

If so, how did it reduce the availability of housing?

2 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

Lots and lots and lots of people who are not rich own their own homes.

Which begs the question, why is it good for goverment to be in the housing business?

2 minutes ago, FriendlyHorse said:

Both would be ideal, let the hierarchy fall into line.

No, it would be ideal for everyone that wants to, own their own home.

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Did homeownership not skyrocket in the '80s and '90s?

It sure did and a whole bunch of idiots went on the "buy-to-let" binge, becoming instant landlords on half-a-dozen properties while dreaming of early retirement. They didn't do the math so couldn't afford the letting agent fees and rising maintenance costs. When taxes also went up, they hiked rents. When tenants couldn't afford the sky high rents they moved out, contributing to the rough sleepers and fueling bank and building society repossessions. Some of the rough sleepers are probably former landlords without a pot to piss in.

15 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

It sure did and a whole bunch of idiots went on the "buy-to-let" binge, becoming instant landlords on half-a-dozen properties while dreaming of early retirement. They didn't do the math so couldn't afford the letting agent fees and rising maintenance costs. When taxes also went up, they hiked rents. When tenants couldn't afford the sky high rents they moved out, contributing to the rough sleepers and fueling bank and building society repossessions. Some of the rough sleepers are probably former landlords without a pot to piss in.

As I understand it, one had to be the occupant of the home for some about of time to buy it, is that not correct?

And if that is correct, how were people able to buy half-a-dozen properties?

In any event, it sounds like you are blaming the buyers that bought the properties, yes?

14 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Just another plonker on a long, very long list of plonkers.

It does seem every 6 month there is a new one?🙃 Are there any elections?

40 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

As I understand it, one had to be the occupant of the home for some about of time to buy it, is that not correct?

Correct, but those buying their council house back in Thatcher's era and immediately after are mostly dead by now and the houses either passed to siblings who rented them out, or they went for a song on the market where the wannabe landlords snapped them up.

For example, my sister's landlady had six former council semi-detached homes in her "investment portfolio" in Lancaster and Preston. After about four years, she was downsizing and getting out as the bubble was bursting. A couple of bad tenants (not my sister) was killing the dream.

When they were council-owned, these properties were maintained and upgraded by the councils at no cost to the tennant. When they became privately owned and rented out, the repair and maintenance of these older properties was an additional expense not factored in.

I'm not blaming these landlords as much as the banks and governments of the time that encouraged them. Everyone needs to do their own due-diligence but with banks back then offering irresistible overdrafts and mortgages, it was simply too good to be true.

7 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Correct, but those buying their council house back in Thatcher's era and immediately after are mostly dead by now and the houses either passed to siblings who rented them out, or they went for a song on the market where the wannabe landlords snapped them up.

For example, my sister's landlady had six former council semi-detached homes in her "investment portfolio" in Lancaster and Preston. After about four years, she was downsizing and getting out as the bubble was bursting. A couple of bad tenants (not my sister) was killing the dream.

Okay, it sounded like you were saying people could swoop in and buy up all the properties when the program started, but that was not the case, correct?

Was there not a minimum time that the people that bought the properties had to wait before they could sell them?

7 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

When they were council-owned, these properties were maintained and upgraded by the councils at no cost to the tennant. When they became privately owned and rented out, the repair and maintenance of these older properties was an additional expense not factored in.

Are landlords in the UK not legally obligated to maintain their properties?

When the properties were counsel owned, did the government subsidize them?

7 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

I'm not blaming these landlords as much as the banks and governments of the time that encouraged them. Everyone needs to do their own due-diligence but with banks back then offering irresistible overdrafts and mortgages, it was simply too good to be true.

What should the banks and the governments have done differently?

What should the banks and the governments do differently going forward?

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Did homeownership not skyrocket in the '80s and '90s?

Yes, because interest rates dropped then, I said last week, in 1978 I paid 16% on a mortgage, in 1981 UB 40's record, A 1in10 in, the amount of people unemployed at the time.

In 1992 I paid 3.5% on a mortgage.

It was after Mrs. T clipped the trade unions wings .and it was the government not Arther Scagill and his like trying to rule the country things started to settle down so house ownership increased, as economy got a bit better.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Which begs the question, why is it good for goverment to be in the housing business?

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

No, it would be ideal for everyone that wants to, own their own home.

But you previously stated, "That's why I said everyone should live in government housing".

Very confusing. If I didn't know better I'd say that you were trolling.

21 minutes ago, RayC said:

But you previously stated, "That's why I said everyone should live in government housing".

Very confusing. If I didn't know better I'd say that you were trolling.

Are you really confused or are you just trolling and defecting again?

The one thing you will not do is get into an honest discussion, at some point, you'll just run away.

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Are you really confused or are you just trolling and defecting again?

The one thing you will not do is get into an honest discussion, at some point, you'll just run away.

Pot. Kettle. Although I couldn't possibly compete with you when it comes to deflection, dishonesty and trolling.

Re you posts below: How do you reconcile your belief that government involvement in housing can simultaneously be a good and bad thing and that home ownership is simultaneously a good and bad thing?

If it looks like a troll, acts like a troll, etc.

And cue ... avoidance, diversion pedantry and semantics ....

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

That's why I said everyone should live in government housing. Why should only the rich get to own homes?

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Allowing renters to buy their homes is a terrible idea. Everyone should live in state owned housing.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Which begs the question, why is it good for goverment to be in the housing business?

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

it would be ideal for everyone that wants to, own their own home.

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

Pot. Kettle. Although I couldn't possibly compete with you when it comes to deflection, dishonesty and trolling.

Re you posts below: How do you reconcile your belief that government involvement in housing can simultaneously be a good and bad thing and that home ownership is simultaneously a good and bad thing?

If it looks like a troll, acts like a troll, etc.

And cue ... avoidance, diversion pedantry and semantics ....

You answer my questions and I'll answer yours, but you won't, because you can't.

I have never said that government involvement in housing is a is a bad thing.

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You answer my questions and I'll answer yours, but you won't, because you can't.

I have never said that government involvement in housing is a is a bad thing.

Have you no shame at all. Rhetorical question.

Avoidance and diversion. No doubt pedantry and semantics will follow soon.

Which part of, your following posts (quotes) imply or infer that government housing is anything other than a bad thing?

"Which begs the question, why is it good for goverment to be in the housing business?"

"it would be ideal for everyone that wants to, own their own homes"

40 minutes ago, RayC said:

Have you no shame at all. Rhetorical question.

Avoidance and diversion. No doubt pedantry and semantics will follow soon.

Which part of, your following posts (quotes) imply or infer that government housing is anything other than a bad thing?

"Which begs the question, why is it good for goverment to be in the housing business?"

"it would be ideal for everyone that wants to, own their own homes"

You still refuse to answer my questions, or to admit you lied.

Again, I have never said that government involvement in housing is a is a bad thing.

Admit you lied and apologize.

That it would be ideal for everyone to own their own home, does not mean that government housing is bad, it just means that is is not ideal. Do you disagree?

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You still refuse to answer my questions, or to admit you lied.

Again, I have never said that government involvement in housing is a is a bad thing.

Admit you lied and apologize.

That it would be ideal for everyone to own their own home, does not mean that government housing is bad, it just means that is is not ideal. Do you disagree?

I find it easier to finish one topic of discussion within a thread before embarking on another. I also think that my original question is in danger of getting lost, so I will summarise.

You made the following statements:

1. "Everyone should live in government housing. Why should only the rich get to own homes?"

2. "Allowing renters to buy their homes is a terrible idea. Everyone should live in state owned housing"

3. "Which begs the question, why is it good for goverment to be in the housing business?"

4. "it would be ideal for everyone that wants to, own their own home"

I then posed the question, "How do you reconcile your belief that government involvement in housing can simultaneously be a good and bad thing and that home ownership is simultaneously a good and bad thing?".

I predicted that you would respond with diversion and semantics and have been proven correct.

I'll try another tack: How can it be " .. ideal for everyone that wants to, own their own home" while at the same time stating that"everyone should live in government housing"? I consider those statements to be inconsistent. Obviously you don't, so what am I missing?

On 9/2/2026 at 4:20 AM, webfact said:

saying the country was “not where any of us would wish it to be” and that “things are not working as they should”.

Sounds like he is describing himself.

Burnham is not fit to lace Thatcher's boots. The little toad. At least she was legitimate.

10 hours ago, RayC said:

I find it easier to finish one topic of discussion within a thread before embarking on another. I also think that my original question is in danger of getting lost, so I will summarise.

You made the following statements:

1. "Everyone should live in government housing. Why should only the rich get to own homes?"

2. "Allowing renters to buy their homes is a terrible idea. Everyone should live in state owned housing"

3. "Which begs the question, why is it good for goverment to be in the housing business?"

4. "it would be ideal for everyone that wants to, own their own home"

I then posed the question, "How do you reconcile your belief that government involvement in housing can simultaneously be a good and bad thing and that home ownership is simultaneously a good and bad thing?".

I predicted that you would respond with diversion and semantics and have been proven correct.

I'll try another tack: How can it be " .. ideal for everyone that wants to, own their own home" while at the same time stating that"everyone should live in government housing"? I consider those statements to be inconsistent. Obviously you don't, so what am I missing?

Because you are not able to have an actual discussion, you clip bits that I have said our or context or tongue in cheek and pretend you have some "gotcha" moment. Weak,

You can't answer questions or have a good faith discussion, because you know your position falls apart the moment you do.

Do you think it ideal for everyone to own their home or not?

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Because you are not able to have an actual discussion, you clip bits that I have said our or context or tongue in cheek and pretend you have some "gotcha" moment. Weak,

You can't answer questions or have a good faith discussion, because you know your position falls apart the moment you do.

Do you think it ideal for everyone to own their home or not?

You wrote that "everyone should live in government housing" while a few minutes later stating that it is " .. ideal for everyone that wants to, own their own home".

Your statements are inconsistent. You try to excuse this irrationality by 1) accusing me of taking those sentences out of context. In what context, can both these statements be true simultaneously? 2) now claiming that the statements were 'tongue in cheek'. Which one? Both of them? How is the reader to know?

You suggest that I cannot have a "good faith discussion" or answer questions because my position falls apart if I attempt to do so. The exact opposite is the case. I start with the premise that the exchange will be conducted that way. Unfortunately, as demonstrated by your replies here, that premise can be proved incorrect.

Let's remind ourselves how this exchange commenced. I accused you of trolling, an accusation with which you took (faux?) umbrage. I had the courtesy to take your denial at face value, since when you have attempted to divert attention away from the point under discussion i.e. your statements.

You are either guilty of inconsistency - which you refuse to acknowledge - or you are trolling. You could be guilty of both; unlike your assertions, it is possible for both of my statements to be true simultaneously.

A "gotcha" moment? Yeah, I'd say so; without a doubt.

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

You wrote that "everyone should live in government housing" while a few minutes later stating that it is " .. ideal for everyone that wants to, own their own home".

Your statements are inconsistent. You try to excuse this irrationality by 1) accusing me of taking those sentences out of context. In what context, can both these statements be true simultaneously? 2) now claiming that the statements were 'tongue in cheek'. Which one? Both of them? How is the reader to know?

You suggest that I cannot have a "good faith discussion" or answer questions because my position falls apart if I attempt to do so. The exact opposite is the case. I start with the premise that the exchange will be conducted that way. Unfortunately, as demonstrated by your replies here, that premise can be proved incorrect.

Let's remind ourselves how this exchange commenced. I accused you of trolling, an accusation with which you took (faux?) umbrage. I had the courtesy to take your denial at face value, since when you have attempted to divert attention away from the point under discussion i.e. your statements.

You are either guilty of inconsistency - which you refuse to acknowledge - or you are trolling. You could be guilty of both; unlike your assertions, it is possible for both of my statements to be true simultaneously.

A "gotcha" moment? Yeah, I'd say so; without a doubt.

Bla bla bla. What a phony you are.

Do you think it ideal for everyone to own their home or not?

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Bla bla bla. What a phony you are.

Oh dear. I appear to have touched a nerve.

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you think it ideal for everyone to own their home or not?

No. The individual is usually best placed to judge whether renting or owning best suits their lifestyle and needs.

Just now, RayC said:

Oh dear. I appear to have touched a nerve.

No. The individual is usually best placed to judge whether renting or owning best suits their lifestyle and needs.

Do you think it ideal for everyone that wants to own their home, to own their own home, or not?

19 hours ago, NanLaew said:

It sure did and a whole bunch of idiots went on the "buy-to-let" binge, becoming instant landlords on half-a-dozen properties while dreaming of early retirement. They didn't do the math so couldn't afford the letting agent fees and rising maintenance costs. When taxes also went up, they hiked rents. When tenants couldn't afford the sky high rents they moved out, contributing to the rough sleepers and fueling bank and building society repossessions. Some of the rough sleepers are probably former landlords without a pot to piss in.

I would say it was the very high interest rates that were rhe major cause. I remember paying 15.4% in 1989/90.

It makes me laugh when people moan about interest rates being high now.

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you think it ideal for everyone that wants to own their home, to own their own home, or not?

If an individual wants to own their home then good luck to them.

Ideal? If I had a 100% variable rate mortgage, spend a disproportionate of my income financing it, had no savings and no insurance e.g. against losing my job, then no, I wouldn't call my situation 'ideal' or that home ownership was ideal for me in those circumstances.

However, that is just an (my) opinion; you may disagree. It's up to the individual to decide what is best for them.

5 minutes ago, RayC said:

If an individual wants to own their home then good luck to them.

Ideal? If I had a 100% variable rate mortgage, spend a disproportionate of my income financing it, had no savings and no insurance e.g. against losing my job, then no, I wouldn't call my situation 'ideal' or that home ownership was ideal for me in those circumstances.

However, that is just an (my) opinion; you may disagree. It's up to the individual to decide what is best for them.

I'm sorry, did you not understand the question?

Just now, Yellowtail said:

I'm sorry, did you not understand the question?

Obviously not if you don't think that I answered it.

Just now, RayC said:

Obviously not if you don't think that I answered it.

If someone that wants to own a home, owns a home, why would they need a mortgage?