Rayner cleared.

A prime minister approved of buying and selling council houses, morally corrupt ?

As far as I know she didn’t buy one.

She made the buying and selling legal

So?

So, she either agreed with the concept, or pushed it through knowing it was morally corrupt.

Neither option sounds great.

MissAdventure

So, she either agreed with the concept, or pushed it through knowing it was morally corrupt.

Neither option sounds great.

Was it morally corrupt or was she giving many people the chance to own (& maintain) their own homes?

What was entirely wrong was not to ringfence the proceeds and built more new stock and not to tighten he rules around reselling at vast profits.

Yes, exactly!
I resent the flats in my block ending up in the hands of people who live 40 odd miles away, who own a collection of them around here.

Germanshepherdsmum

*Doodledog*, how can you compare the purchase of a council house - a property provided and maintained with taxpayers’ money - at a discount and its subsequent resale at a profit with the purchase of a privately provided, maintained and owned house for 100% of market value and its subsequent sale for a profit?

I don't approve of the sale of council houses. I never did. However, I don't think that taking advantage of the scheme that allowed it is immoral, which is what I said in my post.

The fact that house prices are so high that many young people can't afford to buy them, when many older people have made a fortune simply by living in them is, however, morally dubious, surely? House prices (ie 'market values') are high because of the scarcity of options, one of the reasons for which is the sale of council houses, which used to be lived in by a significant percentage of people in the UK. This (amongst other things) has meant that many people have made a profit by doing nothing, and many other people are unable to afford somewhere to live, and I am questioning the morality of that.

My question was whether those who think that it was immoral of AR to buy her house years before she was even an MP would be willing to sell their own houses at a rate that fairly reflects what they paid for them, allowing for improvements, changes in average salaries and so on, so that the next generation has the same chances as we did? I can't say I'd be keen to do that, unless it became law, as it would be to the detriment of my family, but then I don't blame people who also did what was best for their own families.

Good question Doodledog

“My question was whether those who think that it was immoral of AR to buy her house years before she was even an MP would be willing to sell their own houses at a rate that fairly reflects what they paid for them, allowing for improvements, changes in average salaries and so on, so that the next generation has the same chances as we did? I can't say I'd be keen to do that, unless it became law, as it would be to the detriment of my family, but then I don't blame people who also did what was best for their own families.”

And that’s the point isn’t it…she was always a Labour supporter, never mind being an MP, who would’ve been anti anything Tory…except when it fitted her pocket!

This is the hypocritical thing for me, people doing what is ‘best for their own families’ whilst professing to be for the lowest level of society - Tories in other words!

Pantglas2

“My question was whether those who think that it was immoral of AR to buy her house years before she was even an MP would be willing to sell their own houses at a rate that fairly reflects what they paid for them, allowing for improvements, changes in average salaries and so on, so that the next generation has the same chances as we did? I can't say I'd be keen to do that, unless it became law, as it would be to the detriment of my family, but then I don't blame people who also did what was best for their own families.”

And that’s the point isn’t it…she was always a Labour supporter, never mind being an MP, who would’ve been anti anything Tory…except when it fitted her pocket!

This is the hypocritical thing for me, people doing what is ‘best for their own families’ whilst professing to be for the lowest level of society - Tories in other words!

If I'm reading your post correctly, I don't agree. When AR bought her house she was in no way obligated to abide by LP policies (which, AFAIK, don't include repealing the right to buy). She was an 'ordinary woman' - a single parent, trying to do the best she could for herself and her family.

I don't see a conflict between not liking a policy (whether that is the sale of council houses, private education/medicine or whatever) and recognising that as long as it is in place it is the best thing for your family. If the houses around you are too expensive and the only one you can afford is a discounted council house, you might support policies aimed at building more affordable housing, but realise that until they are in place the only house you are going to be able to buy is that one. It's the same as wanting all schools to be good, with nobody able to buy advantage for their children, but living somewhere where the school would be bad for your children's education, so opting to go private. You can still campaign for the abolition of private schools, and still believe that they perpetuate unfairness, but not want to disadvantage your children. If people couldn't do that, there would only be MPs in 'good' areas with high-performing schools/good housing they could afford/decent hospitals and so on.

The Labour Party is not 'for the lowest level in society' either (whatever that means) . The membership is predominantly from the educated middle classes (or was at the last election), and I think the same is true of supporters, although to a lesser degree*. What it stands for is fairness for all - 'the many, not the few', and it has never wanted to drag everyone down in order to achieve that.

*there is a chart here to verify that. My screenshot shortcut isn't working for some reason, or I would post it, but you can easily scroll down to find it.

labourlist.org/2017/04/tim-bale-twenty-first-century-campaigning-just-what-did-labours-members-and-its-supporters-do-for-the-party-at-the-2015-general-election/

Pantglas2 who or what is the lowest level of society ?

Those who need the most help Anniebach, for whatever reason.

I’m not a believer in “the deserving poor” or defining anyone as “feckless”!

I think your post sums up my thoughts on those who don’t practice what they preach Doodledog - and it’s the preaching that gets me every time! At least with the Tories you know they’re out for themselves!

The Labour Party in 2015 was so different to 1997 when Labour went on to win 3 consecutive general elections

I recommend this link for seeing how party alliegance lies by social class yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/26925-how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

I quote
The highest level of education someone has achieved remains an important dividing line in how people vote. Labour did much better than the Conservatives amongst those who have a degree or higher, by 43% to 29%.

The Conservatives won amongst the much larger group of voters who do not hold a degree, however. They outperformed Labour by more than two to one (58% to 25%) amongst those whose highest level of education is GCSE or lower.

Labour is definitely the party of the affluent 'middle classes,' however much to claims its support lies in the 'working classes'

Plenty of middle class voters who are not affluent. My constituency has nurses, teacher, OT's, low level civil servants, in one part and in the other low paid class jobs in industry, retail, etc. In the whole area, some doctors. (Northern Town, not red wall)

I also get fed up if L party people have to out-prove their "creds" but it seems an obsession here.

But Wyllow You shouldn't claim constantly that you are the representatives of a certain demographic group when most of that group vote for the opposition and when many of your policies are aimed at those who support you.

Labour is definitely the party of the affluent 'middle classes,' however much to claims its support lies in the 'working classes'

That says much the same as the article I linked to, M0nica, except that I don't think the LP does claim its support lies in the working class. It wants equality. Arguably, as this is a very unequal country, equality would benefit the poor more than the rich, but it is perfectly possible for people who don't stand to gain financially from it to want to live in a fairer society.

Political allegiance is not divided simply on class lines, as if it were the LP would have been in power far more often than it has. The phenomenon of the 'working class Tory' is well known. There are various theories to explain them. The Marxist view is that they have 'false class consciousness' ie they are people who feel a cut above their neighbours and think that voting Labour would somehow align them with those they look down on, so vote against their interests (measured objectively) in order to feed their sense of superiority. That point of view is summed up by the spoof Red Flag song, that starts 'The working class can kiss my ass/I've got the foreman's job at last'.

A psychological perspective is that they are people who prefer to see society as hierarchical with those 'at the top' being natural leaders 'born to rule', or that w/c Tory voters are those who like life to have rules with 'just because' explanations, so are less likely to question unfairness because 'that's just the way things are'. The 'deferential' working class, in other words.

I'm not sure what I think about those explanations, but to come back to the thread, a classic example of the first group would be (many of) those who bought council houses in the 80s. Thatcher knew that this would buy her support, and she was right. People immediately painted their front doors to show the world that their house was privately owned, and many shifted allegiance to the Tory party, as though having a mortgage instead of a rent book had changed their social class, even though their wages and work situation was exactly the same.

These days we have groups such as 'Mondeo Man', 'Disillusioned Suburbans' 'Red Wall Brexiteers' or the 'Patriotic Left', who cross outdated class lines and are categorised according to priorities and concerns.

And yes, Wyllow. It's bloody tiresome.

You mean the Red Wall vote? I'd be interested to see where it goes this time round of course. People believed Brexit would deliver levelling up and Corbyn was out of touch with voters.

I do however believe that Labour Party policies are more likely to benefit those most in need. Or I wouldn't support them.

Pantglas2

I think your post sums up my thoughts on those who don’t practice what they preach Doodledog - and it’s the preaching that gets me every time! At least with the Tories you know they’re out for themselves!

Ok. So you honestly think that someone who supports fairness but lives (as we all do) in a very unfair society should sacrifice everything and live a life of poverty until everyone is equal?

How far do you take that? Is buying books for your children hypocritical because not all children have parents who value reading? Teaching them to swim when leisure centres are being closed because of cuts? Eating croissants for breakfast when many children go to school hungry? Is it hypocritical to support charities to help the disadvantaged whilst having more than you need yourself?

That argument just doesn't stack up, I'm afraid. By your logic, anyone with any sort of social conscience should live in a tent, wear sackcloth and donate all their salary to the poor.

Don’t begin to tell me what my logic is Doodledog - I’ll explain it myself.

I believe that people who want to stop others choosing to spend their money on buying their council houses at huge discounts, or private school education or healthcare but do all or one of those things themselves are hypocrites.

👏👏👏

So are GN Labour supporters who have had to reach into their pockets somehow or other or got family help for some health or care help hypocrites?