Thatcherism vs One Nation Conservatism

[OSR stands with Israel]

Obviously Thatcherism for me,


IMO Neo-Liberal Conservatism of Reagan and Thatcher is the best form of conservatism

[Big Abraham]

Disraeli > Thatcher, easily

[Dr. MB]

anything's better than Thatcher

[OSR stands with Israel]

anything's better than Thatcher

Thatcherism is more than just Thatcher though,

I would say its the British version  of Neo-Liberal Conservatism

[Blair]

The one that built 300,000 homes a year rather than decimating Britain's social housing stock.

[H. Ross Peron]

The one that built 300,000 homes a year rather than decimating Britain's social housing stock.

[DavidB.]

The one that built 300,000 homes a year rather than decimating Britain's social housing stock.

[Lechasseur]

Disraeli > Thatcher, easily

This

One Nation Conservatism > Thatcherism easily

I'm ideologically a mix between a One Nation and a Traditional (High Tory) Conservative.

When you get down to it, One Nation Conservatism is pretty close to Christian Democracy, which is an ideology which at least historically (in other words until recently) was very good.

Oh, and May > Cameron

[HillGoose]

Thatcherism

[Peanut]

The one that built 300,000 homes a year rather than decimating Britain's social housing stock.

[Politician]

The one that built 300,000 homes a year rather than decimating Britain's social housing stock.

[Fight for Trump]

The one that built 300,000 homes a year rather than decimating Britain's social housing stock.

[DC Al Fine]

Yes

[Lechasseur]

Yes

?

[Esteemed Jimmy]

The one that built 300,000 homes a year rather than decimating Britain's social housing stock.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Thatcherism, I guess.

Also, you do know that social housing is unnecessary and bad, right?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

100% sure One Nation Conservatism.

Also: Theresa May > Tony Blair!

[All Along The Watchtower]

Neither.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Also, you do know that social housing is unnecessary and bad, right?

Many people would be homeless or not be able to pay their rising costs. People with big families and other people in vulnerable positions (minorities, young people ...) definitely have a need for social housing and the long waiting-lists show that there is definitely a need for cheap, social houses. Right now, private housing market only focuses on building expensive houses or apartments no-one can rents and buy, and it increases the gap between the rich and the poor, or social inequality increases.

I live in a social house, since i already live on my own since the age of 17 and partly because of my family situation (my parents were not able to take care of me). If i had to rent a house on the private market. I would not have the funds to study. I definitely have the capacity to follow a difficult study, do something with it and contribute to our society and our economy. Without social housing or social security, i would be doomed to jobs that pay terribly, and it's not even guaranteed that i would be employed. Life is very expensive, many people i know are in trouble, and your policies would make things even more harder for common working class people.

Neoliberalism only makes the rich even richer, while the poor get poorer, and are being exploited more. The gap between rich and poor rises, and it gives fuel to extremism and polarization (what is happening now). In the 1920's something similarly happened with Calvin Coolidge as president of the USA and their laissez-faire politics, refusing to intervene in the economy, and we all know to what it did lead.

[DC Al Fine]

Yes

?

In an election between On Nation Conservatives and Thatcherites, I would be a swing voter.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The one that built 300,000 homes a year rather than decimating Britain's social housing stock.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Thatcher but she’s hardly an angel.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Also, you do know that social housing is unnecessary and bad, right?

Many people would be homeless or not be able to pay their rising costs. People with big families and other people in vulnerable positions (minorities, young people ...) definitely have a need for social housing and the long waiting-lists show that there is definitely a need for cheap, social houses. Right now, private housing market only focuses on building expensive houses or apartments no-one can rents and buy, and it increases the gap between the rich and the poor, or social inequality increases.

I live in a social house, since i already live on my own since the age of 17 and partly because of my family situation (my parents were not able to take care of me). If i had to rent a house on the private market. I would not have the funds to study. I definitely have the capacity to follow a difficult study, do something with it and contribute to our society and our economy. Without social housing or social security, i would be doomed to jobs that pay terribly, and it's not even guaranteed that i would be employed. Life is very expensive, many people i know are in trouble, and your policies would make things even more harder for common working class people.

But the government shouldn't be in the buisness of building housing. It's expensive and it blights cities. The only reason houses are expensive is because developers can't build the mlikns of unites of housing the market demands. Liberalize zoning, and every city in the country would have one bedroom apartments at below $1,000 per month. For the few people who can't afford that, we can turn to solutions like tax credits.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But the government shouldn't be in the buisness of building housing. It's expensive and it blights cities. The only reason houses are expensive is because developers can't build the mlikns of unites of housing the market demands. Liberalize zoning, and every city in the country would have one bedroom apartments at below $1,000 per month. For the few people who can't afford that, we can turn to solutions like tax credits.

Congratulations on being wrong in every single respect!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Also, you do know that social housing is unnecessary and bad, right?

How much do you know about the housing market, about the housing crisis, in Great Britain in the 1950s and 60s?

Nothing, I suspect. But then you don't know much about anything, do you?