Calling all Tories. Why do you Tory?

[pirate]

Thatcher’s government obviously was the first to not invest heavily, of course, but there wasn’t the need to spend it at that time, that came years after she left and I don’t think the sake of council houses was a bad thing.

I think those that followed Thatcher right up until now are more culpable but we agree in the main I think.

thatcher was more culpable, the councils had the money from the sales, she made them spend it on other things. the following leaders would have had to raise taxes to build. Raising taxes is always hard for politicians to do especially the major government that was dealing with the financial crisis that the thatcher government had engineered by their own inept monetary policy. Little sympathy for major though as he was part of the thatcher government

 

[Ban-jani]

thatcher was more culpable, the councils had the money from the sales, she made them spend it on other things. the following leaders would have had to raise taxes to build. Raising taxes is always hard for politicians to do especially the major government that was dealing with the financial crisis that the thatcher government had engineered by their own inept monetary policy. Little sympathy for major though as he was part of the thatcher government

But there wasn’t a great need for a housing development programme at that point, was there?

Maybe you could have argued they could have saved the money for a rainy day but spending money on stuff we don’t need isn’t bright.

 

[Blue Mist]

Oh Misty, stop being naughty.

You started it :-)

 

[Deleted member 77198]

None of that explains why it is fair to close private schools though.

Removing charitable status, why do you care? It will reduce parents ability to afford to send their kid to private school (those making sacrifices to being able to send their kids there which is the vast majority) - but sure remove it, have these kids go to state schools that are already overrun and lose bursaries kicking out bright kids who through no fault of their own their parents can’t afford it. It seems fairly spiteful mind picking on kids but there you go. Personally I favour going the other way and making school fees payable ahead of tax increasing the opportunity for more kids to be able to go.

The exams they face are not “watered down” at all. @Psychedelic Casual might be able to opine on this one.

That link you quoted from the previous post is out of date now because all Summer 2021 exams have been cancelled.

However, as it stood at the time that link was written, all exams were being “watered down” across A-level AS-level GCSE IGCSE BTEC CAMTEC CAMNAT etc. this Summer due to how much schooltime candidates had missed.

All qualifications were due to have topics omitted from the final exams, and some quals removing whole units. For example, AQA GCSE English Literature, Paper 1, was going to keep Shakespeare but then schools were only having to choose two of the three remaining areas of content (when they would usually do all of them).

But what the link then actually shows is how iGCSEs weren’t going to be given advanced notice of the topics that were going to come up on the exams, while GCSEs were.

 

[metalblue]

That link you quoted from the previous post is out of date now because all Summer 2021 exams have been cancelled.

However, as it stood at the time that link was written, all exams were being “watered down” across A-level AS-level GCSE IGCSE BTEC CAMTEC CAMNAT etc. this Summer due to how much schooltime candidates had missed.

All qualifications were due to have topics omitted from the final exams, and some quals removing whole units. For example, AQA GCSE English Literature, Paper 1, was going to keep Shakespeare but then schools were only having to choose two of the three remaining areas of content (when they would usually do all of them).

But what the link then actually shows is how iGCSEs weren’t going to be given advanced notice of the topics that were going to come up on the exams, while GCSEs were.

Thanks mate, really appreciate the post

A-level students have only had what 25%? classroom time at best. These are extraordinary times

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Thanks mate, really appreciate the post

A-level students have only had what 25%? classroom time at best. These are extraordinary times

15 school weeks in Lockdown 1,
I reckon it’ll be 12 school weeks in Lockdown 3,
+ any periods of isolating between Sept-Christmas (some have missed as many as 6 school weeks).

A-level courses are usually 70 school weeks, and Year 13s will have missed between 27-33 school weeks.

[sorry I know this isn’t on topic!]

 

[hilts]

It really doesn’t matter who did what back in the day what matters is now. Labour does not believe in grammar schools/selective education. Nothing limits social mobility than forcing kids to go to failing state schools.

Now I think our education system needs a full makeover - kids tend to be disruptive/truant/ difficult because they are bored. They want to be a plumber they don’t give too shits about learning algebra- but they need to learn maths. Teach them how to create and invoice, simple accounting for their business, how to calculate how much copper pipe they need, how a compression valve works and so on and so forth but above all else teach them how to plumb and save them 2 years at college- they could be earning and paying tax, they’re enjoying school and going and aren’t getting into trouble. Everyone wins

You will find a lot of them are just little cunts with bad parents, some are even little cunts with good parents. Such is life.

 

[metalblue]

You will find a lot of them are just little cunts with bad parents, some are even little cunts with good parents. Such is life.

That’s been the stock answer for too long mate.

We need to think differently and of course you might well be proved right and they might just be little cunts. But least now they’ll be little cunts who can fix a leaking tap

My plumber only know 1 number. £5k. Every fucking time I ask him for a quotes it’s £5k. Maybe if he’d not dicked around at school he’d know other numbers like £500. The ****

 

[hilts]

That’s been the stock answer for too long mate.

We need to think differently and of course you might well be proved right and they might just be little cunts. But least now they’ll be little cunts who can fix a leaking tap

I think thinking a little **** is not just a little **** is called denial, there can be lots of reasons for it boredom seems the most pathetic of excuses.

I’m not against little cunts growing up and fixing my leaking tap.

As long as they can refrain from being a big **** whilst they are doing it:-)

 

[metalblue]

I think thinking a little **** is not just a little **** is called denial, there can be lots of reasons for it boredom seems the most pathetic of excuses.

I’m not against little cunts growing up and fixing my leaking tap.

As long as they can refrain from being a big **** whilst they are doing it:-)

Well that’s the education system sorted. What the fuck do these politicians do all day?

 

[hilts]

Well that’s the education system sorted. What the fuck do these politicians do all day?

Spend their expenses on brass probably:-)

 

[pirate]

But there wasn’t a great need for a housing development programme at that point, was there?

Maybe you could have argued they could have saved the money for a rainy day but spending money on stuff we don’t need isn’t bright.

there was a need for housing at that point, to argue otherwise is rewriting history.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

there was a need for housing at that point, to argue otherwise is rewriting history.

Debating with banjani Is totally pointless. Whatever subject he debates on any thread, he doesn’t listen and knows best.

Whether you agree or disagree with his viewpoint doesn’t matter. He has done his own research on whatever you think worthy of debate with him and whatever you post is irrelevant as his view will not be altered.

 

[Rascal]

thatcher was more culpable, the councils had the money from the sales, she made them spend it on other things. the following leaders would have had to raise taxes to build. Raising taxes is always hard for politicians to do especially the major government that was dealing with the financial crisis that the thatcher government had engineered by their own inept monetary policy. Little sympathy for major though as he was part of the thatcher government

It was about changing mindset, in that sense Thatcher was a true Tory radical, perhaps the greatest Tory radical because she fundamentally changed society and all but destroyed the post WW2 social consensus. As this thread was about why people Tory about, I am surprised nobody has picked up on that. But hey ho, ideology and Tories do not go well together normally. Look at Johnson and he is an ideological vacuum, this lack of ideological fervour is in my opinion what fuelled brexit. They needed something to believe in beyond their normal belief that they are the natural party of Government.

Thatcher as much as I despise her had a clear vision of how she saw society, it was helped along by newly highly charged radicals like Keith Joesph who had become obsessed with Hayek. It is rumoured that all the Tory cabinet of the first Thatcher government were given copies of Hayek's "Road to serfdom" and "Constitution of Liberty" which became bible's for the modern Neo-Liberals and the laissez faire right.
==========================================================================================

Took this from wiki as it is easier to copy and paste than me spend hours explaining it

"The Road to Serfdom was to be the popular edition of the second volume of Hayek's treatise entitled "The Abuse and Decline of Reason",[5] and the title was inspired by the writings of the 19th century French classical liberal thinker Alexis de Tocqueville on the "road to servitude".[6] In the book, Hayek "[warns] of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning."[7] He further argues that the abandonment of individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual. Hayek challenged the view among British Marxists that fascism (including Nazism) was a capitalist reaction against socialism. He argued that fascism, Nazism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and empowering the state over the individual.
============================================================================================

Everything Thatcher did was done in order to promote free market policies, first she had to destroy the Unions to create the conditions she required. Then the selling off of assets followed, this was to encourage free markets as the belief in free markets was total and they were utterly convinced that free markets solved all ills.

In terms of Council housing it smacked of central planning as Hayek explains, in simple terms State = Bad So Thatcher left the market to decide on housing, which hasnt exactly been a success as we can see from the amount of homeless on the streets, the sky high rents and the lack of affordable housing. Councils were barred from replacing housing stock because they were convinced the free market would take care of the housing issues. In my opinion it is one of the biggest failures of neo-liberalism and its effects will last generations.

Only now is the Overton window starting to swing leftwards on this issue and their has been a nod to the need for social housing. It is a start but much more is needed. Remember social housing as envisaged by the post WW2 Atlee government would mean houses were so good that doctors, binmen and the retired could all live on one street in decent housing guaranteed for life. It was meant to recreate society after the madness and dislocation of WW2.

The problem as ever for the right though, is there is no profit in social housing. In my view that is an incredible myopic view of society because we are still suffering the effects of what Cameron called "broken Britain"

 

[metalblue]

It was about changing mindset, in that sense Thatcher was a true Tory radical, perhaps the greatest Tory radical because she fundamentally changed society and all but destroyed the post WW2 social consensus. As this thread was about why people Tory about, I am surprised nobody has picked up on that. But hey ho, ideology and Tories do not go well together normally. Look at Johnson and he is an ideological vacuum, this lack of ideological fervour is in my opinion what fuelled brexit. They needed something to believe in beyond their normal belief that they are the natural party of Government.

Thatcher as much as I despise her had a clear vision of how she saw society, it was helped along by newly highly charged radicals like Keith Joesph who had become obsessed with Hayek. It is rumoured that all the Tory cabinet of the first Thatcher government were given copies of Hayek's "Road to serfdom" and "Constitution of Liberty" which became bible's for the modern Neo-Liberals and the laissez faire right.
==========================================================================================

Took this from wiki as it is easier to copy and paste than me spend hours explaining it

"The Road to Serfdom was to be the popular edition of the second volume of Hayek's treatise entitled "The Abuse and Decline of Reason",[5] and the title was inspired by the writings of the 19th century French classical liberal thinker Alexis de Tocqueville on the "road to servitude".[6] In the book, Hayek "[warns] of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning."[7] He further argues that the abandonment of individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual. Hayek challenged the view among British Marxists that fascism (including Nazism) was a capitalist reaction against socialism. He argued that fascism, Nazism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and empowering the state over the individual.
============================================================================================

Everything Thatcher did was done in order to promote free market policies, first she had to destroy the Unions to create the conditions she required. Then the selling off of assets followed, this was to encourage free markets as the belief in free markets was total and they were utterly convinced that free markets solved all ills.

In terms of Council housing it smacked of central planning as Hayek explains, in simple terms State = Bad So Thatcher left the market to decide on housing, which hasnt exactly been a success as we can see from the amount of homeless on the streets, the sky high rents and the lack of affordable housing. Councils were barred from replacing housing stock because they were convinced the free market would take care of the housing issues. In my opinion it is one of the biggest failures of neo-liberalism and its effects will last generations.

Only now is the Overton window starting to swing leftwards on this issue and their has been a nod to the need for social housing. It is a start but much more is needed. Remember social housing as envisaged by the post WW2 Atlee government would mean houses were so good that doctors, binmen and the retired could all live on one street in decent housing guaranteed for life. It was meant to recreate society after the madness and dislocation of WW2.

The problem as ever for the right though, is there is no profit in social housing. In my view that is an incredible myopic view of society because we are still suffering the effects of what Cameron called "broken Britain"

The seeds to shifting away from the post WW2 consensus were sown long before Thatcher, the recession of 73-75 primarily (unusually with high inflation) and the implications that had on any economic recovery.

She was given a shit hand but dealt with it. Thatcher was the right leader for Britain at the right time - similarly Churchill was. Flawed as they both might have been.

 

[metalblue]

there was a need for housing at that point, to argue otherwise is rewriting history.

I think the argument is that nobody was yelling for it at the time (or at least nobody being heard). That shouldn’t really surprise anyone as we had broadly sufficient housing for the time, but that old inconvenience of population growth is a fact that people just didn’t think of (or care about). Looking back on it it was a mistake and it was pretty obviously going to happen.

 

[Ban-jani]

I think the argument is that nobody was yelling for it at the time (or at least nobody being heard). That shouldn’t really surprise anyone as we had broadly sufficient housing for the time, but that old inconvenience of population growth is a fact that people just didn’t think of (or care about). Looking back on it it was a mistake and it was pretty obviously going to happen.

This is exactly my point and those that followed her were more culpable because the issue was louder.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Voting tory doesn't necessarily make you a "Tory". I think the majority of people vote for the party they think will either:

a) make Britain slightly better
b) not make Britain a lot worse

You mean ...

a) make me slightly better off
b) not make me slightly better off

 

[pirate]

I think the argument is that nobody was yelling for it at the time (or at least nobody being heard). That shouldn’t really surprise anyone as we had broadly sufficient housing for the time, but that old inconvenience of population growth is a fact that people just didn’t think of (or care about). Looking back on it it was a mistake and it was pretty obviously going to happen.

again rewriting history
both the labour party and the liberal/sdp were calling for it from the mid 80's onwards
it was just the tory government and the right wing press that were not.

it was in fact such a debate and in the public sphere that at school in 1986 I had to do a project on the housing shortage and take part in a debate.
The debate wasn't whether there was a shortage of housing or not, the debate was what measures should be taken to alleviate the obvious shortage of housing. The debate boiled down to government investment (whether local or national) versus the free market will correct the problem.

 

[urban genie]

I think the argument is that nobody was yelling for it at the time (or at least nobody being heard). That shouldn’t really surprise anyone as we had broadly sufficient housing for the time, but that old inconvenience of population growth is a fact that people just didn’t think of (or care about). Looking back on it it was a mistake and it was pretty obviously going to happen.

Actually Heseltine insited that most of the money for any property sold should stay with the local authority and be spent on building new social housing, and that was pushed by him until 83 when he moved to the MOD.

He was of the opinion for every house sold another one was gonna be needed to replace it.


The Scheme was not a new idea anyway, it was first muted by labour in the 50s but became a popular tory concept in the early 70s.