The Welfare State We're In: Housing Archives

February 21, 2007

Wednesday

Mixing rich and poor

On Newsnight last night, I was in a discussion that included the minister, Yvette Cooper (the only one who got TV make-up), Professor John Hills (who wrote yesterday's report on council housing), Lynsey Hanley (author)and Shaun Bailey (excuse me if I have mispelled his surname).

There was a moment to relish when Yvette Cooper was talking earnestly about the importance of mixing up the rich and poor. It all sounded very admirable and important. The interviewer, Emily, was taking it in very seriously and not challenging her in the least. Then Shaun Bailey, who lives on an estate, said it would make no difference. You could put the rich and the poor next to each other but they would still be living "in different worlds".

It is probably true that concentrating those with major problems in one housing estate does tend to compound these problems. But it is also true, as Mr Bailey said, that you can have rich and poor very close together without talking to each other for decades. I live in a street with a council estate. I know of no interaction between the rich and the poor on this street over many years. The only exception is via the porter of a luxury block of flats who speaks easily to everyone and - in his amiable way - ticks off council children if they deal in drugs in the estate garden or otherwise misbehave.

Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Housing

Permalink Comments (2) TrackBack (0)

February 20, 2007

Tuesday

Listening to the housing discussion

For today, at least, and perhaps for the next week, it is possible to listen to the debate I took part on the Today programme. Here is a link. The discussion was a 7.55am on Tuesday 20th February.

Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Housing

Permalink Comments (0) TrackBack (1)

Bits and pieces about council housing

The Today programme interview went off tolerably. In preparing for it I came across the remarkable fact that even Will Hutton, the left-wing writer for the Guardian, has decided that council housing has been a disaster. His article is here.

He mentions a book called Estates, Britain's own special ghettos by Lynsey Hanley, who has written for The Observer. He says her book is "passionate and engaging" and it certainly sounds worth having.

On re-reading the chapter on council housing in my own book, I was particularly struck by the fact that in the sixty years up to 1911, 21 million more people came to live in cities in Britain. Without any planning or state housing of substantial size, this massive increase in the city population - a tripling - was successfully catered for.

There were no massive building projects, just thousands of builders building houses and flats to meet demand. Planning and building controls were, of course, much less of an obstacle and added expense than now. What is most impressive of all is that the density of housing - the number of people per dwelling - actually improved during this time. It fell from 5.46 to 5.05. (This from A Social History of Housing by John Burnett).

Another fact worth remembering is that after the second world war, the Attlee government was desperately keen to get new housing built. Council housing was thought to be the answer. Some four out of five buildings were built by councils. Private sector building was restricted to allow all the effort to go into council house building. And the result? Fewer houses were built than in the years after the first world war.

During the debate on the Today programme today, Alan Walter, for the lobby group Defend Council Housing, argued that huge amounts of money are being taken out of council housing. Rents and sales, he suggested, were bringing in much more money than the costs of maintaining existing council housing and new building.

I don't have figures available on this but I am deeply sceptical. The pace of selling council housing has slowed. The costs of renewing council estates that have gone wrong remain enormous. One of the cuttings I cam across stated that Birmingham has faced a bill of £1billion to renovate its council housing. In 2000, it said it intended to destroy 300 tower blocks. The North Peckham Estate - where Damilola Taylor was killed - has been renovated at vast expense. The rents in council accomodation tend to be well below market prices.

There are many ways of counting the numbers on such things. I very much doubt that, properly looked at, council housing has been anything but a financial as well as a social disaster.

One other thing: I notice, on the Defend Council Housing website, a statement by one of its supporters that goes like this:

"Our UNISON branch wish to fight. A lot of our members not only work in housing but we also live in council houses, so we're in double jeopardy."

It is signed, "Jane Moore, Cardiff UNISON".

This is an open, unabashed admission that part of the reason she wants council housing to continue is that she works in the business of council housing. One can't help admiring the honesty, but she is admitting that the 'great fight', in her case, is partly based on her own self-interest. Sight of this made me wonder where the funding for Defend Council Housing comes from. Is any of it from unions whose members work in council housing?

Correction: On buying the book by Lynsey Hanley, I find that the subtitle is "An intimate history" rather than "Britain's own special ghettos".

Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Housing

Permalink Comments (1) TrackBack (4)

Today programme appearance brought forward

My appearance on the Today programme (see previous entry) has been brought forward to between 7.50am today and 8.00 am.

Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Housing

Permalink Comments (0) TrackBack (0)

February 19, 2007

Monday

Faith in the state as landlord has enormously diminished

I have been invited to appear on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 tomorrow, sometime between 8.30am and 9.00 am, to talk about whether council housing has a future. Preparing for this, I have come across the remarkable information that, at its peak, social housing accounted for half of all households in Scotland. That proportion has now slumped to a quarter. And the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland has predicted that this will fall to only eight per cent in 14 years.

This is a measure of just how enormous was the faith once shown in the welfare state: to provide housing for half the population in Scotland, at least. And now that faith has enormously diminished. When was the last time you heard anyone suggest that the state should provide half our housing?

Housing is a part of the welfare state that is quietly being dumped. No government spokesman has ever stated this as policy. Quite the contrary. But this is what has been happening over a long period. (See the chapter on housing in The Welfare State We're In for details.)

Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Housing

Permalink Comments (0) TrackBack (3)

September 04, 2006

Monday

Britain has the highest proportion of single mothers in the European Union and, surprise, surpise, one of the highest rates of benefits for single mothers

Many thanks to Phil Taylor for directing me to this article in the Sunday Times eight days ago.

Here is an extract:

The analysis of figures in 14 European countries found that Britain has by far the highest proportion of single mothers in the European Union.
The report says that in 2001, more than 8% of British households were headed by a single mother aged 18-35, while the UK also has one of the highest rates of benefits for single mothers.

In 1994 a single mother with two children who worked for about 18 hours a week could expect more than £2,000 a year in benefits. By 2001 the figure had increased to more than £3,500.

The researchers do not say outright that high benefits accelerate family break-up. Others, however, believe the study shows that generous benefits for single motherhood provide an incentive for women to have children alone.

Frank Field,

Unfold and continue reading...

the former Labour minister for social security, said: “I’ve always believed in a causal link between benefits and the number of single mothers.
“We’ve got to change so that people don’t become single mothers. For some, they become single mothers by accident, while for others it’s a deliberate choice.”

The study contrasts the situation in Britain and elsewhere in northern Europe with Mediterranean countries such as Spain, where single-mother families constitute less than 1% of the total. Spanish single mothers received £137 in special benefits a year in 1994, which by 2001 had declined to £38.

Spain, along with Greece, Portugal and Italy, have the lowest numbers of single-mother families in Europe.

Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show single-mother families in Britain have steadily risen from 1% of all households with children in 1971 to 11% in 2004.

Libertad Gonzalez, a Barcelona academic who compiled the research, studied a sample of 6,580 single mothers from the European Community Household Panel. She estimates that for every £675 a state offers in benefits to lone parents, the incidence of single mothers goes up in that country by 2%.

After Britain, Ireland — despite its Catholic heritage — has the highest proportion of single mothers in the EU. In 2001 more than 4% of households were headed by single mothers. Irish lone mothers receive as much in benefits as their British counterparts.

Gonzalez said single mothers received more benefits in Britain and Ireland because they had “liberal” social policies where welfare payments were means-tested, which gave greater assistance to the greatest in need.

By contrast the southern European countries had benefits systems where there was an implicit understanding that family networks should provide assistance.

“The correlation across countries is quite striking,” said Gonzalez. “The countries with the highest incidence of single mothers are also the countries with more generous benefit, and vice versa . . . Spain, Greece and Portugal with small numbers of single mothers also have lower benefit levels. The UK and Ireland are both generous with benefits and have a higher incidence of these families.

Wrap up extended reading.

Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Housing • Parenting • Welfare benefits

Permalink Comments (5) TrackBack (11)

Blunkett wants hostels for single mothers

David Blunkett wrote in the Sun last week (august 30,

All too often girls come to my constituency surgery demanding a house for themselves and their baby.
This just isn't on. If the family - and often their mothers are single parents too - can't or won't look after the offspring then we will simply have to go back to the idea of hostel accomodation.

The "give us a house" mentality has to become a thing of the past and be replaced by "give us respect".

It may sound harsh, but blaming the changes in society won't wash.

So there is a former senior minister calling for hostels for unmarried mothers instead of council flats. It is a sign of the changing times. I remember once suggesting to a Daily Telegraph features editor that offering free flats to unmarried mothers had substantially increased the numbers of children born out of wedlock. Out of concern for children, we should cease to do it. Possibly we should offer hostels instead but it was essential that single parenting was an unattractive route for a girl to take (as it naturally would be if the government did not get involved). Only that way would we reduce the number of children brought up in a way that makes them more likely to be unhappy, more likely to be abused, more likely to under-achieve academically and - indeed - more likely to go wrong and suffer in every possible way.

The features editor of that Conservative Party supporting newspaper was shocked. Now a senior Labour Party figure suggests it. It is progress of a sort - but it is painfully slow.

Further on, David Blunkett refers to a survey of 13 European Union countries "this week" which "tried to link the increase in lone parents with the rise in their benefits." He adds "it is true that lone mothers here are given more financial help than all but one of the other countries surveyed".

It is no surprise if the survey suggests a link between subsidies for lone parenting and increases in the incidence of it. But it would be interesting if it was actually commissioned by the European Union. And, in any case, I would be glad if anyone knows of this survey and could direct me to it.

Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Housing • Parenting • Welfare benefits

Permalink Comments (3) TrackBack (2)

May 25, 2006

Thursday

Fifteen per cent of new housing is built over old housing, including gardens

The government has a target to build more homes on 'brownfield' sites. This conjures up the idea that instead of beautiful countryside being invaded to create new homes, redundant industrial wasteland is being converted into new, attractive, residential areas.

In fact, as new figures have revealed, a significant proportion of new housing is being on town and city gardens. Our urban environments are having their greenery removed and replaced by blocks of flats. 15 per cent of new dwellings are being built on residential plots, including gardens.

Nobody wants to live without greenery around. But that is precisely the kind of environment towards which current government policy is taking us.

The figure is from today's Daily Mail (page 2) which cites Tory MP Greg Clark as the person who has found it out - presumably from the government. For good research and analysis on the subject, see Better Homes, Greener Cities published by Policy Exchange.

Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Housing

Permalink Comments (2) TrackBack (3)

May 02, 2006

Tuesday

House prices moving up again

The relevance of house prices to the welfare state might seem pretty weak. In fact, there is more of a connection than one might think. Centralised state planning of permissions for development was started, as I understand it, by the same post-war Attlee administration that was responsible for various other aspects of the welfare state. The restrictive planning was intended, like much else, for the benefit of the people. But it has resulted in property in Britain being phenomenally expensive. This is to the disadvantage, above all, of the poor. This fact may be only tangential to the article on trends in property prices below which I wrote and which appeared in the Daily Express today. But I am posting it anyway. I expect to write more on British housing policy later.

House prices are on the way up again. Hometrack says that they rose 0.6 per cent in April, the biggest increase in a single month since 2004. Across the country, the proportion of estate agents reporting lower prices has fallen from half, last Autumn, to less than five per cent now.

It is true that the Nationwide reported only a nominal rise in April. But its price increase for March was a big one. The exact timing does not matter. Overall, virtually all price reports now tell us that the property market is on the move this spring. Those of us thinking of buying should probably get a move on. Those thinking of selling can probably relax a little. The buyers are on their way.

How far can this new upturn go? Are the boom conditions of the past back or will it fizzle out? We need a bit of history to put it in context:

In 1995, only eleven years ago, the average price of a home in Britain was £51,000. The average price is now over £160,000. There has been a massive increase. In the second half of last year, the remarkable boom finally slowed down and then stopped. Property prices actually fell. In some areas, including London, prices fell quite noticeably.

Unfold and continue reading...

What caused the astonishing boom in British property prices which started well before 1995? There are many factors but one of the most crucial was surely the major reduction in interest rates. In the 1980s, mortgage rates were often well over ten per cent. It cost a great deal to borrow. Lower interest rates brought the cost right down, increasing the fire-power of competing buyers. A second factor has been the much great competition among lenders. One used to have to get into a mortgage queue in order to borrow. Borrowers were supplicants hoping to get a favourable hearing. Now the queue is among lenders - to hand over their money. The cost and availability of mortgages have both improved dramatically.

Price rises came to a grinding halt last year largely because interest rates were on the rise again. This increased the cost of borrowing and pushed up unemployment, too, another dampener.

But now, most people believe that interest rates are near their peak. Borrowers are no longer in such fear that interest rates might continue upwards to a level that they cannot manage.

So how far can the current rise go? It will not be a boom as extraordinary as the one we had over the past two decades. The one-off radical drop in interest rates cannot be repeated. But prices are likely to continue rising in a way that will substantially affect the wealth of all who own property.

In the short term, the latest upward trend was only established in October and there would need to be a compelling reason for it to run out of steam in only half a year. Secondly the stockmarket has been rising for three years now. The bull market in shares augurs well for houses because the stockmarket tends to be ahead of the game. One direct effect is that those working in the City are getting big bonuses again.

Over the past few years, London prices have not risen as fast as those in the rest of the country. But aided by these City bonuses, London is now pushing ahead at the fastest clip. The good news for the rest of the country is that rises in London prices tend to spread out over the following years.

Not everything is positive. Council tax has become a bigger burden because Gordon Brown has found it to be a good way of hiding the overall increase in his taxation. Council tax is primarily levied on housing, not people. So it has become a kind of tax on home ownership. Mr Brown has also hit housing through increased stamp duty which, since the rate of duty increases with prices, is now hitting more and more people harder and harder. The same applies to inheritance tax. People do not want to die leaving their children an asset which will, in part, be taxed at 40 per cent. So the elderly will increasingly be more inclined to sell, or trade down.

More immediately, our electricity and gas bills have gone up and will probably be bumped up again. That reduces the cash left for servicing mortgages.

But the positives are currently outweighing these negatives and there seems no reason to think this will change soon. So prices will probably continue to rise this year and, in the long term, prices will be virtually forced to rise. The logic seems inescapable: demand for housing in Britain keeps on rising but the supply is hardly budging at all. It is a pressure cooker.

Growing demand comes from the way we increasingly live in small households because more of us are elderly or divorced. It comes from growing incomes, inflation and immigration, too. In response, new housing amounts to a mere one per cent of the existing stock. Planning law in Britain is highly restrictive. So the increase in demand cannot be met by an equivalent increase in supply. Prices have to rise. In the coming years it won't be at the 17 per cent a year rate which it was for the recent two decades. But, by combining inflation with the growth in incomes and then adding in something for the 'pressure cooker effect', it is easy to come up with a long term average of at least six per cent a year and quite possibly seven or eight per cent.

What happens if property prices rise at an average of seven per cent a year? Prices nearly double in ten years. Housing remains a good investment.

Wrap up extended reading.

Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Housing

Permalink Comments (4) TrackBack (1)

November 28, 2005

Monday

No man's land on a council estate

There's a real culture of dependency on these estates. One reason is because people expect to be housed and never to be kicked out....
Imagine you are a nine-year old boy living here. You see these groups of older boys. They seem to be tough. They seem to be having a good time. Nobody interferes with them. You want to be a man and these appear to be men to you.

These are quotes from a new pamphlet.There is a shortage of descriptions of the dynamics of life for those who become alienated and turn to crime and other forms of destructive behaviour. So the publication of No Man's Land: How Britain's Inner City Youth Are Being Failed by the Centre of Policy Studies is welcome.It is written by Shaun Bailey, a man whose mother tried to get him away from the council estate culture in which she lived. She succeeded but he has returned to try to help on an estate. He describes the culture there.

The first chapter is on the CPS website here. The full pamphlet can be bought via that website. There is a serialisation in the Daily Mail today.

Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Behaviour & Crime • Housing

Permalink Comments (0) TrackBack (15)

November 21, 2005

Monday

Even the Labour Party has now given up on council housing

How many people, even in the Labour Party, have noticed the dog that didn't bark? On what has been one of the major parts of the party's social policy for decades, the government has gone very quiet.
The hush that has fallen is shown by two statistics: in 1953, local councils built nearly a quarter of a million council homes. Last year, they built a mere 250. The building of council homes has gone from being a major part of British life and politics, the stuff of headlines and passionate national debates, to a virtual irrelevance - a trifling thousandth of what it once was.

This is the beginning of an article I have written for The First Post. The full article can be found here.

Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Housing

Permalink Comments (0) TrackBack (0)

November 05, 2005

Saturday

What is the cause of the Paris riots?

When the riots in Paris are reported, the most commonly mentioned factor is race. The implication is that this is a cause of the violence. No doubt racial conflict adds to the problem. There is also mention of people being poor.

But I suspect something different lies behind it all. The report in the Telegraph on Thursday by Henry Samuel referred several times to the places in which the riots took place:

The riots first broke out on the Chêne-Pointu council estate. Last Thursday, two adolescents from the estate died when they scaled the 8ft wall of an electricity substation to dodge police and were electrocuted.
....Chêne-Pointu typifies the problems of many of the urban ghettoes that surround Paris and other large French cities: a high immigrant population, soaring unemployment and drug dealing.

...."We're not dumb. Sarkozy has declared war on suburban youth," said Karim, 23. "Unless he apologises for the way he has treated us, then he can expect 40 nights of violence," he said.

But others around the estate back Mr Sarkozy. "What he says may be crude, but he's right. Drug runners and petty criminals have had it good too long around here.

....In the neighbouring Bosquet estate, Traore Gounedi, a 27-year-old worker in a local social centre, is incensed. "Ten years ago, Clichy was a real no-go area. But in recent years we had built up sports clubs and other associations and it had become calm...."

As night fell at Chêne-Pointu, sirens heralded the approach of two fire engines that positioned themselves in front of the estate awaiting the flames.

Notice the appearances of the word

Unfold and continue reading...

Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Behaviour & Crime • Housing • Parenting

Permalink Comments (5) TrackBack (10)

June 26, 2005

Sunday

The no-go areas of brutish Britain

Another measure of how brutish Britain is becoming: DHL will no longer deliver to some areas because of the danger to drivers. Imagine what those areas must be like for the residents.

Unfold and continue reading...

Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Behaviour & Crime • Housing

Permalink Comments (1) TrackBack (38)

June 21, 2005

Tuesday

Frank Field thinks the unthinkable

Former Welfare Minister Frank Field is pushing for tough action to throw unruly tenants - responsible for social ills including noise, assaults and vandalism - off estates.
And he believes ministers should copy a scheme in Kamper, eastern Holland, where neighbours from hell have been moved into vandal-proof accommodation in steel containers.

Unfold and continue reading...

Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Behaviour & Crime • Housing

Permalink Comments (16) TrackBack (13)

June 20, 2005

Monday

Watch out, the government intends to tax your property.

If you own property, the government is on your tail. The idea of increasing taxes on property has been building up for several years. Now the election is out of the way - and there is a big government budget deficit to fix - it won't be long now.

Unfold and continue reading...

Ministers are bursting with ideas and are asking others to come up with more. A government policy document proposes that council tax in Northern Ireland should be based on home values. The idea could be tried out there and then applied nationwide.

If ministers don't go for that one, they will get suggestions from a review of council tax by Sir Michael Lyons later this year. He is likely to recommend changes to council tax which will result in many people paying more.

Don't let us forget second homes. Next month a 'rural housing commission' will start looking for ways in which to hurt those with a place in town and a hideaway in the country. This could be done through planning restrictions or by raising council tax for second home owners. Yvette Cooper, a minister in John Prescott's department, has said it might be a good idea to tax second home owners because this could make more homes affordable for local people. As ever, the government is keen to blame problems on other people. The real reason property is expensive is that we have a rising population (partly through immigration), more people living alone because of family breakdown and very restrictive planning laws. The result is inevitable and not the fault of second home owners.

Gordon Brown has already got 'form' on taxing property. He has increased the rate of stamp duty several times since he became chancellor and he has kept the increases in stamp duty thresholds - the point at which the higher rates apply - far below the increases in house prices. The top rate of stamp duty is now four per cent and many people who once thought the higher rates would never affect them are finding they are getting close to them.

Mr Brown also increasingly taxes property when people die. As with stamp duty, he has raised the inheritance tax threshold as slowly as possible. As property prices have risen, there are millions of people alive today who will not be able to leave their homes to their children, free and clear. They will be forced to leave up to forty per cent of the value to Gordon Brown.

Why does Labour government have it in for property?

One reason is grubbily political. Property taxes genrally raise money without hitting Labour's supporters in areas where property prices are relatively low. In Scotland and the North of England, some 60 per cent of property purchases do not attract stamp duty at all. That compares with only 13 per cent in the South East and less than five per cent in London. Similarly less than 10 per cent of purchases in Scotland, the North, the North-West, Yorkshire and Humberside and Wales attract the the three per cent or four per cent bands of stamp duty. In contrast, the higher rates are paid in close to 40 per cent of purchases in London. Stamp duty is a tax on the south and on Conservative Party supporters.

Gordon Brown has also got Left-wing theorists egging him on towards higher property taxation too. The Institute for Public Policy Research has called on the government to “reduce the under-taxation of home ownership” arguing that more tax would reduce the gap between the homes lived in by the rich and those of the poor. Another argument in favour of hitting home owners is the suggestion that, Britain has "too much owner" occupation and is "out of line" with the lower levels on the Continent.

Is it right that our property should be taxed more? Is it a 'good thing' we would be selfish to oppose?

Actually a high rate of home ownership is a positive thing. People look after their own homes better than, say, homes belonging to a council. The total destruction of many council estates over the years - both in Britain and abroad - is testament to this fact. The reason home ownership is less widespread in many Continental countries is probably because they have taxed it so heavily. Some Continental countries have made it disastrously expensive to buy and sell houses. The rules are far from simple but in France, for example, stamp duty is between 10 and 12 per cent for properties older than five years. In Italy the rate is 11 per cent. So what happens? People don't buy and sell. They rent, not through choice but because the government pushes them that way. These countries have made a mistake. They should change, not us.

Labour is missing the most profound point about property. A house or flat may seem to be just a piece of land with some bricks - a good target for taxation. But to each of us as individuals, an owned home is profoundly important. It is somewhere we can go to whenever we want and for as long as we want. It is financial security. Even if we lose our jobs or our shares go down, we feel that we will still own something if we own our home. And it will very probably keep, or increase, its value.

A house or flat is a way in which we try to improve our circumstances. We typically start off in a small place. But we hope to save, get promotion or an inheritance and then move on to something better. The desire to take ourselves and our families to better things is a natural part of human behaviour. It benefits ourselves, our families and the national economy.

These are things Tony Blair appeared to understand before he became prime minister. When out canvassing for votes, he met 'Sierra Man' polishing his car - the sort of person who had done well out of Lady Thatcher's years. Sierra Man had bought his council house and had been able to get his car because of lower taxes. 'Sierra Man' had 'got on' with the aid of property ownership and low taxes. It was because Mr Blair saw the importance of this that he got his landslide.

Unfortunately Tony Blair has not been in charge of the taxing and spending of this government. Gordon Brown has. What is more, he is likely to get the top job in the next few years. He subscribes to the idea that taxing property is good. So look out, home owners, you are first in line for the coming rise in taxes.

(This is an unedited version of an article that appeared in the Daily Express today.)

Wrap up extended reading.

Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Housing • Tax and growth

Permalink Comments (0) TrackBack (42)

June 07, 2005

Tuesday

The Thatcher years by Norman Tebbitt and others

I went to an event at the Institute of Economic Affairs last night at which several of the authors of a new book, Margaret Thatcher's Revolution, including Norman Tebbitt, spoke. Here are some of their remarks:

Dennis O'Keeffe: "much 'special needs' is about children who have not been taught to read".

David Marsland: Privatising the supply of healthcare (ie hospitals and doctors) is relatively easy. Privatising demand is more difficult. But a start could be made by using tax rebates to enable people to opt out of state-financed care.

James Stanfield: He went to a comprehensive school. He did GCSE in English Literature and did not do any Shakespeare at all. The year after he left, the headmaster was punched by a pupil as order faded. He reckons he got out 'just in time'. He wanted governments, if they are subsidising education, to subsidise the consumer, not the producer. He said he had been to Kenya and was appalled that the British government was exporting the failed British model of 'free and compulsory' education. He said, "British money is destroying education in Africa."

Norman Tebbitt talked of the huge transfer of assets that took place under Thatcher from the public sector to the private sector. He reeled off a list of companies privatised that was far longer than most of us can easily remember. On top of that was the sale of council homes. He said these things combined to make a big difference in social attitudes.

He admitted some failures.

Unfold and continue reading...

He said, "we failed in the non-economic aspects of policy" and "I bitterly regret that we weren't bolder in our programme in 1987 - particularly in health reform and education reform".

On Europe, he suggested the policy now should be to describe a European Union of a kind that we would like and, if we cannot get it (or, presumably, something close, that we should leave the EU. He said that Thatcher tried to make the European Union into more of the kind of place she wanted with the Single Market. But this had not worked: "Have we got a single market? Have we hell!"

He was asked what was the biggest mistake of the Thatcher years. He had no doubt that it was joining the Exchange Rate Mechanism. Up until the ERM fiasco, the Conservatives were ahead in virtually every opinion poll on the question of which party would be better at running the economy. Ever since the ERM, the Conservatives have been behind on the same question.

In describing Margaret Thatcher's view of things, he said, "she believed fundamentally that people behave logically". He said approvingly that she was "predictable". You know what she would think on any issue. You did not have to ring up Number Ten and ask. When she and he were both making speeches on the same night, they did not need to exchange speeches to ensure they would not contradict each other. The line was clear and predictable. He pitied those who worked for Blair who would have no such certainty. [For example, does he believe in the state running things or private companies? One minute Railtrack is nationalised, the next he is contracting out hospital operations to private companies.]

The evening brought home how many radical things she did - things that are easily forgotten like removing exchange controls, pay limits and dividend controls. Tebbitt remarked, "we were thinking so many unthinkable thoughts we almost frightened ourselves".

Dennis O'Keeffe said that under the Thatcher administration he came to be proud of Britain. In looking to a future leader of the Tory party, he thought we would need one who could make us proud again.

Wrap up extended reading.

Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Education • European Union • Housing • NHS • Politics

Permalink Comments (7) TrackBack (23)