Do we expect too much as a right in Great Britain?

The Conservatives under Mrs T may have built the houses but they were nearly all houses for sale. During her reign the number of council /housing association/social/affordable housing built, call it what you will, was abysmally low. To the haves it was given, to the have-nots it was taken away.

If people are debating something, they are not necessarily "taking the moral high ground" if they choose to disagree with you, are they? It is an accusation that you once levelled at me, ninny and I do think it is unsubstantiated.

A debate is not a dispute.

ayse I agree with everything you say and, in particular, the part about the madness of paying housing benefit to landlords instead of the government building social housing that is of decent quality and has affordable rents.

Couldn't access your link I'm afraid, rosequartz - 'Page not found'.

Oh, will have another look.

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/council_house_building_margaret_thatcher_labour_government-29270

Not saying I agree or disagree with the above, just a link I found which I thought was relevant.

Thanks. At least that's a rather more balanced view.

Although this report does not say that Margaret Thatcher's government built more properties for sale.
Is it not also a fact that the Labour Government closed more pits than were closed under Mrs Thatcher's government?

Unless someone knows better, this is what I mean by rose-tinted spectacles.

Or a jaundiced view, whichever you prefer!

I will put my wooden spoon back in the rack and go to catch up on some tv programmes.

W1A here I come.

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/council_house_building_margaret_thatcher_labour_government-29270
Your link did not work for me, rose. Hope this one does.

rose re-posted her link at 21.20 durhamjen.

Sorry, did not notice that.
Nobody has mentioned that this government has now said that builders can build as many houses as they want without any of them being affordable, or have I missed that as well?
www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/22/garden-cities-affordable-homes-tcpa-ebbsfleet-howard-letchworth
New planning rules.

Rose, it depends on who you read about pit closures.

www.leftfootforward.org/2013/04/tory-spin-on-coal-masks-fact-that-80-per-cent-of-coal-jobs-were-lost-under-thatcher/

The problem, as I said earlier, was the fact that the miners could not move because nobody wanted to live in a pit village with no work, so the miners could not sell their houses after Thatcher closed the pits.
When Wilson closed pits, there were jobs elsewhere. The miners had rented the pit houses so could stop renting in one pit village and move to another pit village where there was work.
I know this because my father-in-law was a foreman repairing pit houses. Once most of them had been sold in Northumberland, he was made redundant. He wasn't responsible for just one village; it was the whole of Northumberland from Ashington up to Wooler, and across to the National park. He was in charge of a lot of men, who also lost their jobs.

Am I wrong in saying the fact remains that Wilson closed a reported 290 pits and Thatcher 160.

It was a time when a lot of men lost their jobs because of the pit strikes, they too lost their homes. The pit strikes caused nationwide problems which touched the lives of families not in the coal industry. They did not have a choice of whether or not to go on strike, their factories and employers had to make that decision for them. It was a terrible time for everybody but it hardly get's a mention.

www.healeyhero.co.uk/rescue/individual/Bob_Bradley/PM-Closures.html

Haven't added them all up, POGS. I'm sure you will be able to.

Thatcher did it on purpose, vindictively to get rid of the NUM. She said so. I do not think that was the reason behind Wilson closing pits. It was because the pits ran out of coal. When we moved back up north, there was only one pit in Northumberland, and that was close soon after, because it was uneconomical.
I am not saying that it was only miners who lost their jobs. Miners lost their jobs because of Thatcher's vindictiveness. If Thatcher had not set out to destroy the NUM, those other jobs might not have been lost.

durhamjen i do not need a history lesson, don't be so pedantic.

Shut up, ninny.
Some of us find jen's posts informative.

Don't say "shut up" to ninny!

Wonder why ninny took durhamjen's post personally. I agree with janea that her post is helpful and informative and adds to the discussion. I assumed that it was part of that general discussion and not a history lesson directed specifically at ninny. Why so touchy?

I don't need to add up pit closures. The internet is quite sufficient information to go by.

DurhamJen's posts are always a useful source of information. And, although I am an historian, I don't regard being pointed in the direction of unbiased information as a 'history lesson'. Neither is it 'pedantic'. It does, however, astonish me that anyone would find a link to an informative source as being personally directed.

I think there are some poster mcem who come across as wanting to lecture others and it's annoying when, as in ninny's case, she is already familiar with the subject matter.

If it's new information to a reader then of course it's more interesting to them.

A difficult one I know as I'm sure most people don't mean to offend, unlike a remark such as 'shut up' for which there is little justification (IMO)

Oh dear - I thought that was quite mild, Aka.