Young people can't afford to buy homes

[AndrewJB]

To be honest I can't recall but not 5% or even 10%. But it was a fair %age. A mid terrace. Nothing special

I must say I am no communist but I do share some of the current opposition views on this subject. Clamp down on builders holding onto land to keep.prices up and taxing second homes - in UK. Also we really need to address this massive North - South divide ( London really).and improve job prospects and thus wages in the North and Midlands. The northern powerhouse now under my MP.is doing what? Not a lot compared to.for example infrastructure projects in London.

Sorry about the rant but I feel very strong about this great North South chasm

The price of your first house as a multiple of your wage at the time would have been: 1 equals your yearly wage, 2 equals two years of your wage, etc. That's how the banks do it these days, so apologies for not making the question clear. I just thought it would allow you the privacy of not having to say what you paid or how much you earned. My point behind the question was that house prices have greatly outstripped wage growth, so nowadays a person on an average starting wage will be looking at a much steeper hill to climb than you probably did (or I).

I see the buy to let market as a major problem in both house price growth, and a reduction in available first time homes. The buy to let market has grown as the number of council houses has decreased, and very often people who can't get a council house find themselves renting ex-council houses for the full market rate. As other people have said, rents are often a lot higher than mortgage payments, making it even harder to save for a deposit.

I don't blame people for becoming landlords to make money - or as many people lectured on the circuit; "become property millionaires", and I'm sure we all know people who have delved into this to greater or lesser degrees; but the system and market is tuned in their favour, and so people starting off lose out. There is nothing wrong with the government changing the rules to give tenants more rights, and building more council houses, or anything else that positively changes this.

The moral point though is that a house is something - whether bought or rented - that people live in, and then invest in the community, and grow roots, and children call 'home', and this is the best environment to grow business. Stable and rooted.

[Funkydrummer]

Well if you bought in the eighties funky you were quids in surely.?

Well I'm mortgage free now if that's what you mean. I don't recall the relationship between
income and house prices, all I know is that we had to scrimp and scrape to get a deposit together to
buy a property at the bottom of the ladder. We had no help from parents or grandparents.
We then climbed the ladder slowly but surely over the years.

As regards my earlier post, the interest rates were triple what they are currently and so the repayments
were very high. I remember it being very disheartening in the early years at the financial year end to
discover that you owed more than you borrowed after making a full 12 month's payments.

PS We bought our first house in 1976 (blimey, that's a long time ago )

[Rick_Muller]

I just did a quick Zoopla search of the postcode MK43 (from the property you posted) and a 5 mile radius...

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-fo ... SSTC=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


There is so much property available under 200k...

It's about managing expectations. You can't have everything.

Trust me, the properties you found are not suitable in any way shape or form. The MK43 postcode is large enough to find properties outside of the allowable commutable area for my work. I saw some cheap flea pit 1 bed apartments in drug den areas of Rushden - not the best place for me and my partner to raise an 8 year old on the autistic spectrum.

The point is, I know in Burnley you can get a new build with similar specs as a new build around here for £200k less - but I don’t work in Burnley and my job is specialised and not available everywhere. I also happen to like my job and like the area I live in. I’m not saying it’s impossible to buy a house, just difficult - and the disparity of mortgage rates for higher LTVs is the point I was highlighting originally. We will be buying within 12 months all being well, but it has been a difficult 5 years for us both working full time to get a deposit together.

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm struggling here

Are people really saying "if its not a problem in Burnley, then its not a problem anywhere else"

Cos that is what it effectively sounds like.

[burnleymik]

Trust me, the properties you found are not suitable in any way shape or form. The MK43 postcode is large enough to find properties outside of the allowable commutable area for my work. I saw some cheap flea pit 1 bed apartments in drug den areas of Rushden - not the best place for me and my partner to raise an 8 year old on the autistic spectrum.

The point is, I know in Burnley you can get a new build with similar specs as a new build around here for £200k less - but I don’t work in Burnley and my job is specialised and not available everywhere. I also happen to like my job and like the area I live in. I’m not saying it’s impossible to buy a house, just difficult - and the disparity of mortgage rates for higher LTVs is the point I was highlighting originally. We will be buying within 12 months all being well, but it has been a difficult 5 years for us both working full time to get a deposit together.

No offense Rick, but this is part of the problem. People don't manage their expectations. If you need that job and property is too expensive then it is unfortunate, but you choose the job and the area over owning a property. People seem to want everything.

We had to start off in a dump, in fact a flat above KFC on Colne Road (if you know the area!) and had to work our way up.

The problem is though that there is a claim of a lack of affordable housing and I disagree because the problem is the houses just are not where people want them to be.

[burnleymik]

I'm struggling here

Are people really saying "if its not a problem in Burnley, then its not a problem anywhere else"

Cos that is what it effectively sounds like.

You are right you are struggling, if that is what you have drawn from this thread.

[PutTheWheelieBinsOut]

Young people will never get a good deal economically until the Baby Boomers die off. Our whole political system is geared towards the baby boomers generation and that included policy's in the past like selling council houses and selling off our utilities. Never before as a generation of people benefited so much by taking away the future of younger generations, they have took more out than they have payed in.
How did we let this happen? Simple the baby boomers vote and they vote in high numbers, so political party's want their vote. And sadly younger generations simply don't vote in great enough number to matter. It's no good sitting at home and complaining, get out and vote, doesn't matter if your Labour, Tory, UKIP, Lib Dems, Remainers, Leavers, Just vote! The political establishment will only listen to a generation/s when they use their vote!!

[Lancasterclaret]

I may be being slightly flippant but its definitely implied I feel

You've said there are plenty of affordable homes, when there clearly isn't

Affordable homes are a UK wide problem, while its clearly not an issue in certain parts of the country, which sadly tend to be quite a long way away from where most people live, and not where the jobs are either.

At the very least its (yet again) another attempt to pretend a actual real problem is actually really simple.

[burnleymik]

I saw some cheap flea pit 1 bed apartments in drug den areas of Rushden - not the best place for me and my partner to raise an 8 year old on the autistic spectrum.

Just to come back to this...

As you say there are properties there, but you don't like them, the area, and it's not suitable for your little one, which is fair enough. So there is reasonably priced housing, it's just not your preferred choice. I think that right there is the difference.

[Jakubclaret]

I may be being slightly flippant but its definitely implied I feel

You've said there are plenty of affordable homes, when there clearly isn't

Affordable homes are a UK wide problem, while its clearly not an issue in certain parts of the country, which sadly tend to be quite a long way away from where most people live, and not where the jobs are either.

At the very least its (yet again) another attempt to pretend a actual real problem is actually really simple.

There’s certain areas throughout Lancashire, houses on terraced streets boarded up (Asian areas) there can’t even give them away if that’s not affordable I’m not sure what is.

[Lancasterclaret]

Point proved I feel there.

[burnleymik]

I may be being slightly flippant but its definitely implied I feel

You've said there are plenty of affordable homes, when there clearly isn't

Affordable homes are a UK wide problem, while its clearly not an issue in certain parts of the country, which sadly tend to be quite a long way away from where most people live, and not where the jobs are either.

At the very least its (yet again) another attempt to pretend a actual real problem is actually really simple.

There are. All over Lancashire, Yorkshire, in fact most of the North West, North East, East, Wales, Scotland etc. The only place you will struggle is in the South or more affluent areas and likely Cities.

I am not saying there are not other mitigating factors, there clearly are, and lots of them pointed out on this thread, but to say there are no affordable homes is simply not true IMO.

I understand people don't want to commute too far or live in deprived areas, I have no problem with that, but that is a choice they make. If you really want to get on the property ladder you have to lower expectations in some way and compromise.

[Lancasterclaret]

There are not lots of affordable homes where most of the jobs are. That's fairly obvious.

The people who commute from Lancaster to London (for example) are not on minimum wage, or even average wage.

The richer you are, the further out you can live to commute I think.

Its asking a lot for a family with a decent job in the SE to move up to here for not such a decent job just to get on the housing ladder, though a redistribution of wealth, jobs and infrastructure would be most welcome, its also not very realistic!

Anyway bed calls!

[burnleymik]

Its asking a lot for a family with a decent job in the SE to move up to here for not such a decent job just to get on the housing ladder, though a redistribution of wealth, jobs and infrastructure would be most welcome, its also not very realistic!

Anyway bed calls!

I agree. The point I am making is that it is a choice.

There are lots of properties that first time buyers could buy for good prices, but the ultimate price is that they would have to move away from where they are now.

To say there is no affordable housing is incorrect.

[Rick_Muller]

I agree. The point I am making is that it is a choice.

There are lots of properties that first time buyers could buy for good prices, but the ultimate price is that they would have to move away from where they are now.

To say there is no affordable housing is incorrect.

So, just for clarity, I would have to move away from where I have a job I like to a place where I cannot get a job just so that I can buy a house and get on the housing market and pay for that house with the money I get from the job that I have given up to move to the place where I can buy a house...

Sorry mate, but that is an overly simplistic way of looking at it. If a young person who is starting out in their career can actually get a choice of where they want to live and then be able to afford to buy a house there I'd be surprised.

[Lancasterclaret]

Agree, its (yet another) issue in this country that isn't simple to solve.

[Rick_Muller]

Just to come back to this...

As you say there are properties there, but you don't like them, the area, and it's not suitable for your little one, which is fair enough. So there is reasonably priced housing, it's just not your preferred choice. I think that right there is the difference.

It is not reasonably priced though is it - the cheap 1 bed apartments are not even suitable for a family are they? That's before you look at the location and the surroundings and the additional cost of commuting a 50 mile round trip every day.

Look, I understand your point, and it is a valid point albeit simplistic and not necessarily applicable in regards to my personal situation. The housing market has many variables - there are supply and demand issues; there are mortgage rate issues; there are social issues; there are workforce issues; there are immigration issues; etc etc etc all affecting the housing market and whilst we have a clear and distinct lack of proper social housing for those who clearly cannot get on the housing market in any way shape or form and remove these tenants from the private rental market which should not be providing long term social housing I dont think we can begin to "fix" the housing market for the rest of society.

[AndrewJB]

I agree. The point I am making is that it is a choice.

There are lots of properties that first time buyers could buy for good prices, but the ultimate price is that they would have to move away from where they are now.

To say there is no affordable housing is incorrect.

This is where insisting on going with the magical fairy hand of the market is silly. There should be affordable housing everywhere - even in central London. It's called council housing. More council housing makes for lower private rents, and reduced house prices. The current preoccupation with maintaining or growing house prices is what has led to the ludicrous situation where people are faced with the choice of living in hovels or having long and expensive commutes. There are more empty homes than homeless people, and in the last year four hundred and forty homeless people died.

[Caballo]

It's no different than it ever was, just magnified more now than previously. I bought my first house in 87, it wasn't where I wanted to buy a house or the type of house I wanted to buy, it was however the one I could afford.
Sadly now, the compromise required on location and style of property to achieve affordability in some areas of the country have reached a tipping point.

[Rick_Muller]

It's no different than it ever was, just magnified more now than previously. I bought my first house in 87, it wasn't where I wanted to buy a house or the type of house I wanted to buy, it was however the one I could afford.
Sadly now, the compromise required on location and style of property to achieve affordability in some areas of the country have reached a tipping point.

I understand your point, and I agree to a large extent that it is no different to what it used to be, however in these current times we have a much larger private landlord group profiteering out of the housing situation as opposed to local councils providing affordable housing for all who need it. I believe that the "privatisation" of the social housing market is what has caused this tipping point as you described it and its a Pandora's box scenario where it just cannot be reversed and put back in.

[burnleymik]

So, just for clarity, I would have to move away from where I have a job I like to a place where I cannot get a job just so that I can buy a house and get on the housing market and pay for that house with the money I get from the job that I have given up to move to the place where I can buy a house...

So you are unemployable anywhere apart from where you are right now? If you want to own a house and it's too expensive where you are now, then yes, you are going to have to compromise, why should taxpayers have to help fund schemes to pay for you to get onto the property ladder?

Sorry mate, but that is an overly simplistic way of looking at it. If a young person who is starting out in their career can actually get a choice of where they want to live and then be able to afford to buy a house there I'd be surprised.

I am not having a go at your personally, but why should young people have everything just because it's what they expect? We all have to make compromises, yes it would be lovely if we could all have everything we want, but we have to be realistic and manage our expectations. If you want to live somewhere quite expensive because that is where you work and what you like, then the compromise is owning a home.

If people actually did start moving away from the cities and buying houses in cheaper areas it would have positive impacts for everyone.

[Lancasterclaret]

Giving yourself away here Mik

"why should young people have everything just because its what they expect"

There is an alarming trend on here (and elsewhere) in which the old blame the young for stuff, and the young blame the old for stuff.

Now on the availability of housing, people have woken up in the past twenty years to what a good investment a house is, so lots of older people have put their money into houses with no intention of selling to get rents and keep an asset that doesn't drop in value.

That is the reality I'm afraid.

Young people can't get on the ladder IN THE AREAS WHERE THE JOBS ARE. You can't ignore that, or keep saying that they have to move.

[burnleymik]

I am not blaming them for anything. They are absolutely correct to aspire to do as well for themselves and their families, as they can, but they just have to be realistic in their goals.

[Quickenthetempo]

Councils haven't got the budgets to go back to providing low rent accommodation on a large scale.
They would of only sold them off cheap previously as they cost a fortune to maintain that the rents won't cover.
And seeing as most private landlords have the sign up of no DHSS I don't think it would bother them in the slightest.
Luckily we never needed to use the council house system but there was a bit of unrest in our area about how these families got much bigger properties with the big gardens for next to nowt. When most working families had the 2 up 2 down terraced.

[Rick_Muller]

So you are unemployable anywhere apart from where you are right now? If you want to own a house and it's too expensive where you are now, then yes, you are going to have to compromise, why should taxpayers have to help fund schemes to pay for you to get onto the property ladder?

I'm not asking for the taxpayers (me included) to fund schemes to pay for me to be able to buy a house, my main point on this thread was relating to the disparity of mortgage rates for different LTV mortgages and how that is currently pushing buyers towards using H2B to buy new properties at over inflated prices for the profit of builders. Then after 5 years, the buyers realise that they cannot afford to pay off the H2B loan, so some try to sell up and effectively lose all the equity they built up in the property (where the profit has gone to the builder) and are left almost back at square 1 with equity equivalent to their initial deposit if they are lucky and nothing if not. My partner's sister is in that exact scenario in Gloucestershire. The up side is that the housing market is stagnating and prices do appear to be falling in some places, but that will only have the effect of allowing more private landlords to buy more properties cheaply and profit from "social housing".

In terms of my job, yes it is highly specialised and I am fairly certain that I can only do this job with the additional benefits that I receive where I am currently employed (not financial, but related to my health and disability where my employer understands my issues and supports me). I have job security that I personally would not have anywhere else, but as you say - it is a choice and my choice is to persevere where I am and make it onto the housing market - which I will be doing within 12 months. It has not been easy for me, a 46 year old starting over in life, but it could have been easier for me if, for example the mortgage rates for higher LTV mortgages been more comparable to others instead of the massive jump between the rates for lower LTVs.

I am not having a go at your personally, but why should young people have everything just because it's what they expect? We all have to make compromises, yes it would be lovely if we could all have everything we want, but we have to be realistic and manage our expectations. If you want to live somewhere quite expensive because that is where you work and what you like, then the compromise is owning a home.

If people actually did start moving away from the cities and buying houses in cheaper areas it would have positive impacts for everyone.

I agree on that one, but that would only work if there was viable work for people in those other areas.

[Quickenthetempo]

Rick is there no possibility of building your own house?

Is there any small plots of land in the area?

Some absolute stunning houses were built on that TV program for 100k.

Stressful time in a caravan while they build but a house how you want it when finished.

[Rick_Muller]

Rik is there no possibility of building your own house?

Is there any small plots of land in the area?

Some absolute stunning houses were built on that TV program for 100k.

Stressful time in a caravan while they build but a house how you want it when finished.

all the land in this area has been bought by builders - it has crossed our minds though

[Quickenthetempo]

It only has to be small.

Plenty of people with large gardens built houses at the bottom so they could move in there and sell their original house to pay for it and have a huge profit.

Or you could look at static caravans or luxury barges seeing as you earn a bit. Some of the caravans and sites about now are stunning. With no council tax as a bonus. The two weeks you have to spend off the site to qualify is just used as a holiday with the savings.

[aggi]

The issue really is the lack of properties where people want to live. There's two solutions really:

1. Build more properties in those areas;

2. Make areas with less stress on the housing supply more attractive.

Ideally number two should be the solution. There aren't that many developed countries that have a capital city which is so disproportionate to the economy as London is.

Investment is really needed to improve availability of jobs in other areas, improve transport infrastructure, volume of businesses, entertainment, etc I think this sums up how seriously the government are taking this at the moment though https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -the-north" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Quickenthetempo]

We could rename England to London.

That should make our property prices rise in line with capitals.

[South West Claret.]

The youngest worker today would need to wait until they were almost 100 years old to see the average wage in Britain double from its current levels, according to a study that highlights the UK's struggle to boost wages since the credit crunch. The Resolution Foundation said failure to improve on recent levels of pay growth would condemn Britain to a wait until 2099 before the current average pay packet has doubled after inflation - much longer than was required before the financial crisis for a twofold increase in real wages. - Guardian.

A prime reason why they can’t afford to buy homes.

[LS7]

All I want to add to this thread is to say good luck Rick Muller and I hope it works out for you.

[tim_noone]

Four blocks of flats in Enfield North London housing a thousand people are to be demolished i dont know the reasons but theres 500 council tenants... on the rebuild of the new Luxury building there will supposedly be 250 social housing places available plus an influx of new wealthier owners forcing most of the owner occupiers out. What will be the outcome of grenfell tower? You dont need a crystal ball...... something stinks within the whole housing industry.

[Hipper]

The price of your first house as a multiple of your wage at the time would have been: 1 equals your yearly wage, 2 equals two years of your wage, etc. That's how the banks do it these days, so apologies for not making the question clear. I just thought it would allow you the privacy of not having to say what you paid or how much you earned. My point behind the question was that house prices have greatly outstripped wage growth, so nowadays a person on an average starting wage will be looking at a much steeper hill to climb than you probably did (or I).

I see the buy to let market as a major problem in both house price growth, and a reduction in available first time homes. The buy to let market has grown as the number of council houses has decreased, and very often people who can't get a council house find themselves renting ex-council houses for the full market rate. As other people have said, rents are often a lot higher than mortgage payments, making it even harder to save for a deposit.

I don't blame people for becoming landlords to make money - or as many people lectured on the circuit; "become property millionaires", and I'm sure we all know people who have delved into this to greater or lesser degrees; but the system and market is tuned in their favour, and so people starting off lose out. There is nothing wrong with the government changing the rules to give tenants more rights, and building more council houses, or anything else that positively changes this.

The moral point though is that a house is something - whether bought or rented - that people live in, and then invest in the community, and grow roots, and children call 'home', and this is the best environment to grow business. Stable and rooted.

The government has introduced policies to try and dampen the Buy to Let market:

https://www.simplybusiness.co.uk/knowle ... nges-2018/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know some Buy to Let landlords who are reluctant to buy additional properties because of this.

There are also policies that generate social housing. In my area if you build new properties or carry out a conversion, for every five units built, you must include one 'affordable home'.

[CrosspoolClarets]

The issues on the housing market are to me simple:

1. Too much demand (a combination of unnecessary low skilled migration, broken homes, singletons and a unique residential university culture where graduates then fully relocate to their university location instead of staying at home until they marry.
2. Too low interest rates fuelling massive house price rises (my house has risen 400% since I bought it 20 years ago which is 7% rise per year compounded, way beyond inflation)
3. Wages growing far below inflation.
4. Rents are high because people can't afford to buy, and because most low skilled migration choose to rent, both push up demand


All four can be tackled. But the quid pro quo is that a million or more will be left in negative equity. A brave politician (or central banker, but that's the same thing) is needed to make the right decision. Because there is no such thing as a brave politician that means we will flounder for another decade....

....although, Mr Market has a way of deciding for us. As the legendary investor Ben Graham (who taught Warren Buffett) said “In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run it is a weighing machine.”. In other words, decisions eventually get taken out of all of our hands. What's the thing that will bring Mr Market from his slumber.....inflation.

[AndrewJB]

The government has introduced policies to try and dampen the Buy to Let market:

https://www.simplybusiness.co.uk/knowle ... nges-2018/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know some Buy to Let landlords who are reluctant to buy additional properties because of this.

There are also policies that generate social housing. In my area if you build new properties or carry out a conversion, for every five units built, you must include one 'affordable home'.

There is still plenty of money to be made as a landlord. It's just not as easy as it was.

[RyanTheClaret]

It's tough on young people, once they've bought their latest iphone/contract, paid £15 for a bottle of water on their Ibiza holiday, financed nights out in Manny, bought a twin exhaust VW Golf and paid for their concerts every month all on credit, there's no way of saving up a deposit, let alone paying off the student loan and debt run up on the Aussie Gap Year.

I would like to speak on behalf of "young people" - go **** yourself.

I've worked full-time since leaving college (and worked part-time during that time), I don't do any of the things you've said and buy cheap but reliable second hand cars to get me about. Never touched a credit card in my life either. But keep telling yourself you're better than us.

[Stayingup]

[quote="Rick_Muller"]For those criticising the young, I can understand their apathy about buying their own house and instead spending on what some would call frivolous spending on material goods. When I first bought a house my wage was £20k and my house cost £45k (in 1996). Now I am trying to buy again as a 46 year old (with no equity I'll add - ex-wife scenario), my wage has doubled, but the houses are nearly 10 times the cost - I am finding it overwhelming so I dread to think what a youngster with a whole life of mortgage debt to look forward to thinks. I do believe some mortgage providers are considering 50 year mortgages for young people...! Our "slave boxes" as some people call them are getting expensive...[/quote

What was the interest rate when you bought your first house. It was about 14% when we bought ours. What is it now?

[Stayingup]

Well I'm mortgage free now if that's what you mean. I don't recall the relationship between
income and house prices, all I know is that we had to scrimp and scrape to get a deposit together to
buy a property at the bottom of the ladder. We had no help from parents or grandparents.
We then climbed the ladder slowly but surely over the years.

As regards my earlier post, the interest rates were triple what they are currently and so the repayments
were very high. I remember it being very disheartening in the early years at the financial year end to
discover that you owed more than you borrowed after making a full 12 month's payments.

PS We bought our first house in 1976 (blimey, that's a long time ago )

Interest rates were far higher than where they are now

That of course helped to keep.hiuse price rises sensible and realistic. This era of low rates and QE among other things, has inflated house prices and other assets. It's high time the Central Banks stopped feeding the very rich and normalized rates and stopped printing money.

[Rick_Muller]

What was the interest rate when you bought your first house. It was about 14% when we bought ours. What is it now?

It’s was about 6-7% if memory serves. I also recall 100% mortgages at similar rates to 75% LTVs (in fact any LTV) in fact some lenders would mortgage at 125% because they trusted the equity to grow. Granted rates are currently lower, but only for those who already have at least 25% equity

[Rick_Muller]

All I want to add to this thread is to say good luck Rick Muller and I hope it works out for you.

Just wanted to bounce this post...

Myself and the other half moved in to our new house today - after 6 years of saving; and the ex managing to sell up and give me the equity from my former home we managed to make it onto the housing market again. Feeling anxious about having a 22 year mortgage of over £250k at the age of 47, along with the 20% equity loan to pay back after 5 years, but we’ve done it - FINALLY

[LS7]

That’s really good news and just in time for Christmas ! Tom

[Blackrod]

Just had a read through some of this. Clearly there's not enough affordable housing in areas where people want to live. There is affordable housing in some areas. In Nelson and other areas families have moved in to deteriorate the area to drive down house prices so their extended family can buy them cheaper. If you want to live in more affluent area then you have to pay the going rate.

In years gone by people scrimped and saved more and did without many things just to keep a roof over their heads. Now many young people who could get on the housing ladder spend money on the latest technology. expensive nights out boozing, expensive finance on brand new cars that they could otherwise not afford. People could make more sacrifices in where they choose to live and what they spend their money on. They want everything they want immediately generation driven by social media and reality tv.

[Lancasterclaret]

great news! Congratulations!

[Woodleyclaret]

They can in Burnley and Nelson .

[LoveCurryPies]

It's because they are a shiftless bunch of wasters.

Unbelievable comment. I really like the young of today. Most of them are ambitious and hard working. Maybe you are referring to your own family?

They now leave Uni with colossal debts around their necks and are expected to buy properties at today’s ludicrous prices. I’m glad I’m not their age.

My daughter is a nurse working in a large City heart unit, sometimes doing 22 hour shifts. Last week she saved 2 lives in one day. Going by your username, you better hope you won’t require her services any day soon.

[South West Claret.]

Well of course more young people can’t afford to buy homes as their wages and conditions are a lot lower in general then say in the 70’s.

Quite simply if you have lived through those periods you will have witnessed it in person and well aware, although an awful lot of those people didn’t realise the so called drip drip slowly slowly way it came in by successive Governments.

These Governments did it by making it virtually impossible for an awful lot of people to improve wages & conditions by banning Trade Unions from actually helping their members (and non- union members if they only new it)! to improve their lot.

Thatcher’s Government was responsible for this dumming down of rates for the majority of workers, sadly the Tory Blair Government did little to bring back that regulater of the economy for employees .

That is the historical evidence if you actually want the truth and not another spurious and frankly excuse from the obvious quarters.

[Blackrod]

Unbelievable comment. I really like the young of today. Most of them are ambitious and hard working. Maybe you are referring to your own family?

They now leave Uni with colossal debts around their necks and are expected to buy properties at today’s ludicrous prices. I’m glad I’m not their age.

My daughter is a nurse working in a large City heart unit, sometimes doing 22 hour shifts. Last week she saved 2 lives in one day. Going by your username, you better hope you won’t require her services any day soon.

I'm sure Curry Pies are great for the old ticker

[Blackrod]

Well of course more young people can’t afford to buy homes as their wages and conditions are a lot lower in general then say in the 70’s.

Quite simply if you have lived through those periods you will have witnessed it in person and well aware, although an awful lot of those people didn’t realise the so called drip drip slowly slowly way it came in by successive Governments.

These Governments did it by making it virtually impossible for an awful lot of people to improve wages & conditions by banning Trade Unions from actually helping their members (and non- union members if they only new it)! to improve their lot.

Thatcher’s Government was responsible for this dumming down of rates for the majority of workers, sadly the Tory Blair Government did little to bring back that regulater of the economy for employees .

That is the historical evidence if you actually want the truth and not another spurious and frankly excuse from the obvious quarters.

Yes good old Trade Unions

[LoveCurryPies]

I'm sure Curry Pies are great for the old ticker

My username was in memory of those terrible curry pies they used to sell at Turf Moor.

However, I think there is a huge market for a real curry in a pie.