if you don't mind being just outside the M25 i've found you a nice well presented 1 bed with separate lounge, bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, in up and coming Greenhithe, walkable to station and Bluewater for £600pcm.
So it's just a coincidence that the demand for housing has outstripped supply year on year?
This graph may give you an indication of why that has happened and the fact it ain't going to go away.
Yes - if you are selective enough about your indexing you can make line graphs look quite spectacular. Your horizontal index covers 60 years. Your vertical index starts at 55,000 and ends at 73,000. Have I got C**T written on my forehead ;0)
If I started with the Jurassic period and then phase in Adam & Eve, the upward curve would be virtually vertical for the past 60 years.
The dream of owning your own home. I'd say that is almost an impossible dream for both my sons, as long as I am on this earth anyway. What a change from when I was their age.
You are happy when you accept the world as it is not as you want it to be, so people will have to accept that they won't be home-owners and get on with their lives.
I was stunned when the RTB idea came out in the election - it seemed like a throwback to a bygone era but maybe it won them a few votes?
I think you've got it. I can happily accept that I will pay rent for the rest of my life. I cannot happily accept that more than 50% of my earnings will go on renting a poky flat 20 miles from where I work.
What is the obsession with living inside the M25. It is,obviously, going to be more expensive the closer you get to Central London. AFKA is right, Greenhithe is cheaper. Move further out to Gravesend and I suspect it get's even cheaper.
With all due respect if one is working in London and earning less than £21k a year then they shouldn't be considering looking for a single occupancy property that close to work. Having a place of one's own is not an automatic right.
Most of my friends that lived in London after University did so in house shares for several years before they all had increases in their salaries and got girlfriends to buy with (double incomes). Almost all of them have now moved out of London so that they can afford to buy a house big enough to have children.
It is naive for the young to think that they can have everything they want. If you ask your parents (or if you're under 30 your grandparents) and they will tell you that when they first moved out of their parent's home they had no money. They would have struggled to pay the rent/mortgage and afford the heating, let alone wide screen TVs, mobile phones and a car each.
The problem with social housing is that due to the fact that it is so cheap the demand for it is always going to outstrip supply. It doesn't, really, matter if it's buying or renting, if it's cheap there will never be enough of it to go around. I don't, personally, see that it is any less fair to sell these houses on than it is to allow them to be rented out so cheap. Either we accept that social housing is unfair based on who qualifies for it or we, literally, sell all of the houses on at full market value and no one has access to one - to rent or to buy.
In the early 80's you might have to wait on a list for a few months, or go to a housing association rather than straight to the local authority, but you were likely to be housed. Local authorities were seen as a challenge to the power of Westminster. Therefore they were simply asset stripped.
Simply not true.
I registered with Lewisham Council, aged 18 in 1980, for a one bed flat.
I was told that I'd have to wait 23 years before I got one, due to the available supply and demand for their Housing.
And bloody Thatcher had only been in power for abut 10 months.
What is the obsession with living inside the M25. It is,obviously, going to be more expensive the closer you get to Central London. AFKA is right, Greenhithe is cheaper. Move further out to Gravesend and I suspect it get's even cheaper.
With all due respect if one is working in London and earning less than £21k a year then they shouldn't be considering looking for a single occupancy property that close to work. Having a place of one's own is not an automatic right.
Most of my friends that lived in London after University did so in house shares for several years before they all had increases in their salaries and got girlfriends to buy with (double incomes). Almost all of them have now moved out of London so that they can afford to buy a house big enough to have children.
It is naive for the young to think that they can have everything they want. If you ask your parents (or if you're under 30 your grandparents) and they will tell you that when they first moved out of their parent's home they had no money. They would have struggled to pay the rent/mortgage and afford the heating, let alone wide screen TVs, mobile phones and a car each.
The problem with social housing is that due to the fact that it is so cheap the demand for it is always going to outstrip supply. It doesn't, really, matter if it's buying or renting, if it's cheap there will never be enough of it to go around. I don't, personally, see that it is any less fair to sell these houses on than it is to allow them to be rented out so cheap. Either we accept that social housing is unfair based on who qualifies for it or we, literally, sell all of the houses on at full market value and no one has access to one - to rent or to buy.
In the early 80's you might have to wait on a list for a few months, or go to a housing association rather than straight to the local authority, but you were likely to be housed. Local authorities were seen as a challenge to the power of Westminster. Therefore they were simply asset stripped.
Simply not true.
I registered with Lewisham Council, aged 18 in 1980, for a one bed flat.
I was told that I'd have to wait 23 years before I got one, due to the available supply and demand for their Housing.
And bloody Thatcher had only been in power for abut 10 months.
Forgive me if this has already been said but if every sold off Housing Association place is going to be replaced, then build the so called replacementfirst before each sell off. Bankers can front the money. Build first, sell second. This policy was a desperate election bribe at the time it was announced, and it stinks to high heaven, and as I said on the General Election thread, how does this help the 10,000 youngsters kicked out of care each year? Start your housing policy with those 10,000, and society might begin to work out a genuine solution to the problems of somewhere for people to live rather than this car boot sale approach to the housing crisis.
Yeah the devil is in the detail I know. But this strikes me as (apparent) vote winning policy first, sorting out how to do it second. In London there is a genuine housing crisis where folk with modest jobs are forced to live in Pembrokeshire or somewhere like that. To me it makes sense that the party of business and enterprise (so we are told) would love this kind of churn for their friends in real estate and the financial sector to get a cut out of. If the Conservatives are keen for people to have somewhere to live, then start with the homeless, not those who already have somewhere.
What is the obsession with living inside the M25. It is,obviously, going to be more expensive the closer you get to Central London. AFKA is right, Greenhithe is cheaper. Move further out to Gravesend and I suspect it get's even cheaper.
With all due respect if one is working in London and earning less than £21k a year then they shouldn't be considering looking for a single occupancy property that close to work. Having a place of one's own is not an automatic right.
Most of my friends that lived in London after University did so in house shares for several years before they all had increases in their salaries and got girlfriends to buy with (double incomes). Almost all of them have now moved out of London so that they can afford to buy a house big enough to have children.
It is naive for the young to think that they can have everything they want. If you ask your parents (or if you're under 30 your grandparents) and they will tell you that when they first moved out of their parent's home they had no money. They would have struggled to pay the rent/mortgage and afford the heating, let alone wide screen TVs, mobile phones and a car each.
The problem with social housing is that due to the fact that it is so cheap the demand for it is always going to outstrip supply. It doesn't, really, matter if it's buying or renting, if it's cheap there will never be enough of it to go around. I don't, personally, see that it is any less fair to sell these houses on than it is to allow them to be rented out so cheap. Either we accept that social housing is unfair based on who qualifies for it or we, literally, sell all of the houses on at full market value and no one has access to one - to rent or to buy.
I chose M25 as it is a useful boundary to indicate travelling distance into London. With all due respect if you think that earning less than £21 k a year means you shouldnt have the right to live within an hours travel of your workplace I think you are lacking due respect. "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure". Indeed. I am 55. I have run my own business, managed teams of other professionals, traveled widely and now find myself unable to live not only in the place I would like to call home, but not even within 30 miles of it. The idea of social housing was to provide secure, decent housing to ordinary people no matter their earning power. This is obviously a dreadful idea. Demand did not always outstrip supply whatever you may like to think. In the early 80's you might have to wait on a list for a few months, or go to a housing association rather than straight to the local authority, but you were likely to be housed. Local authorities were seen as a challenge to the power of Westminster. Therefore they were simply asset stripped.
You have misquoted me so much in your post I can't see any point in responding to your comments except to point out that you are arguing against something I just didn't say!
So it's just a coincidence that the demand for housing has outstripped supply year on year?
This graph may give you an indication of why that has happened and the fact it ain't going to go away.
Yes - if you are selective enough about your indexing you can make line graphs look quite spectacular. Your horizontal index covers 60 years. Your vertical index starts at 55,000 and ends at 73,000. Have I got C**T written on my forehead ;0)
you might have if you often miss three zeros off bills you pay or receive.
Forgive me if this has already been said but if every sold off Housing Association place is going to be replaced, then build the so called replacementfirst before each sell off. Bankers can front the money. Build first, sell second. This policy was a desperate election bribe at the time it was announced, and it stinks to high heaven, and as I said on the General Election thread, how does this help the 10,000 youngsters kicked out of care each year? Start your housing policy with those 10,000, and society might begin to work out a genuine solution to the problems of somewhere for people to live rather than this car boot sale approach to the housing crisis.
could you expand on the emotive ' kicked out of care' phrase and perhaps put it in context withe previous rates
I got married in 1973 , we both had jobs, but could not afford a house in London , so we found a house in Luton , but there was a problem with the fence , and needed replacing , the mortgage company would not lend us extra money to replace , so the deal fell through , next step was a overspill area in Wellingborough , new house with 95 % mortgage , we lived there for three years , before we moved to Kent , where we bought up our family , my point is that it has never been easy getting on the ladder , and now with prices like they are there is little hope of young people joining the home ownership club, only way is wages to triple or house prices to fall in line with affordability
Comments
And it reads TNUC
;-)
I registered with Lewisham Council, aged 18 in 1980, for a one bed flat.
I was told that I'd have to wait 23 years before I got one, due to the available supply and demand for their Housing.
And bloody Thatcher had only been in power for abut 10 months.
This policy was a desperate election bribe at the time it was announced, and it stinks to high heaven, and as I said on the General Election thread, how does this help the 10,000 youngsters kicked out of care each year?
Start your housing policy with those 10,000, and society might begin to work out a genuine solution to the problems of somewhere for people to live rather than this car boot sale approach to the housing crisis.
But who chooses the first 10k and what if you're 10,001 on the list?
In London there is a genuine housing crisis where folk with modest jobs are forced to live in Pembrokeshire or somewhere like that.
To me it makes sense that the party of business and enterprise (so we are told) would love this kind of churn for their friends in real estate and the financial sector to get a cut out of.
If the Conservatives are keen for people to have somewhere to live, then start with the homeless, not those who already have somewhere.
http://www.housing.org.uk/media/blog/extending-right-to-buy-to-housing-associations-and-other-distractions/
http://www.housing.org.uk/media/blog/extending-right-to-buy-to-housing-associations-and-other-distractions/