Not much, to be honest. If a Government that is supposed to believe in free self-governing market economics – with no state interference – is prepared to subsidise and or underwrite large individual purchases, you have to ask why. One possible answer is a touch depressing – they need to keep the housing market bubble growing steadily, because if (when) it bursts, things will REALLY go bad. To do this more people need to come in at the bottom end..

It goes back to a widely-held belief that the ever-inflating cost of somewhere to live is somehow a viable basis for an economy – but I digress.

Regarding the earlier point, sorry, I could have phrased that more clearly. I meant to say that paying a smaller ‘council’ rent freed up the rest of a persons income – more is ‘disposable’ if less is spent on rent, which is good for all of the economy except for private landlords (which wasn’t every middle class person in the UK, in those days).

Don’t forget that once upon a time working people lived in council houses. People with low-paid jobs, not ‘scroungers’.

These days, the same working people need subsidies anyway, just to live. Meanwhile private landlords are collecting literal fortunes from them. I agree, what you see when you get your head out of the ‘I’m alright Jack’ sand is quite an ugly picture.

..and right-to-buy was one of the instruments that brought about this situation, whether or not is was a good thing for those who bought. Someone else said something about the party the people vote for not necessarily being the most beneficial to the country in the long term – I am sure right-to-buy did buy votes for the right.. But it was economic short-termism writ very large indeed.

Any Government can sell off state assets at a lot less than their market value (and what they cost the taxpayer to create). It seems odd that the wisdom of doing that in fiscal policy terms wasn’t questioned at the time.

Interesting. Is it true that knowledge of the construction of the Camel has been lost?

Please try to forget that I read the Grauniad – this is purely personal. I have a niece who is severely autistic. She cannot speak beyond occasional half-formed words, she cannot control her bowel movements. She has to be carried everywhere and sometimes she panics in new or unexpected situations and hits out violently in her terror.

This will not be cured by a good slap.

Fair question!

…if you pre-suppose abrogation of your own personal responsibilities the moment a left wing government takes charge. Which would make you one of those freeloaders.. are you sure you thought that one through?

Maybe a better distinction would be between those who believe it is their duty to look after themselves before others, and those who feel no such ‘duty’.

The first bit – absolutely that is what she uttered! The second bit.. close, but a Fox News corruption. There is an important distinction between the word ‘state’ and the actual word used by socialists, no matter how unfashionable in the UK, which is ‘collective’.

The latter highlights a common good, ultimately a utilitarian viewpoint,and driven by consideration of the needs of others. The former doesn’t necessarily need to take any of that into account.

And no, Stalinist nutters are not the same thing, any more than you are any kind of Fascist if you vote conservative. I don’t subscribe to that nonsense.

No one wants to replace the current state with a collective.. and you can’t. Apples with oranges again.

Example – ‘right to buy’. Who exactly bought their council house with available cash?

It was a.policy. One that reduced the ability of the state to provide housing at maintenance cost rather than market ‘value’ (one way of freeing individuals cash), while putting huge swathes into sudden debt (and a mortage is debt, on the national balance sheet). So yes. Policy.

An idealogical one, too, as it valued individual ownership above collective ownership. The results of there being ‘no such thing as society’ in the blessed Margaret’s eyes have all come home to roost – though some are still blaming the poor.

Even the name ‘RIGHT to buy’ – making out the government were giving people rights when flogging them assets. Clever, but balls.

There you go, Glenn. That’s info for your friend, which just happens in this case to come from one of the leading, if not the leading, genuine experts on the subject.. I hope that we do hear from you again.