Labour Party politics

[Teddy Eagle]

We’re going round in circles a bit.

No one should be forced to sell their house - I find that weird framing.

If they can’t afford their living expenses without top ups from the state, whilst sitting on a hugely expensive asset, they shouldn’t be eligible for said top ups.

OK, now I get you. This is what I meant when I said I didn't understand; apologies for being slow.
Yes, everybody has to live within their means, although, God knows, I haven't always managed it in the past.

 

[Stirlingsays]

We’re going round in circles a bit.

No one should be forced to sell their house - I find that weird framing.

If they can’t afford their living expenses without top ups from the state, whilst sitting on a hugely expensive asset, they shouldn’t be eligible for said top ups.

If it means anything I have sympathy towards your viewpoint and you are pointing towards a collective failure of many governments towards the young, because they all know that pensioners are a powerful voting block.

But it's SW1's fault and negligence that they are even faced with this choice....it shouldn't be a case of attacking older generations.

We know that older generations don't like to think they had it easier, because nothing ever is easy for most people, but it's undenialable now that for every working class young person who doesn't have the 'bank of mum and dad' to fall back on getting a start on the housing ladder is unrealistic.....they have had the ladder pulled away.

However, in situations where the house is being given to someone's children, I think that's fair enough....In fact I consider it a sign that you succeeded as a parent as you're giving them a better start or continuance than you had.

Society has to be built for the average person to succeed, if you have to be a high flyer then it's not working properly. I often see the attitude of 'I'm alright Jack' and as we have seen when enough people don't give a feck then society declines.....there are other factors, social cohesion being one of them but while it factors in it's also a different angle.

The real people to blame have been the Thatchers, Majors, Blairs, Brown and so on and so forth who kicked the housing can down the road because it presented no obvious wins for them...and only expense....just like those feckers didn't build the nuclear power plants we needed.

As the old saying goes, 'society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit', so 'I'm alright Jack' is a dis-serve to previous generations who strived to provide better times for their children.

And government is the worse 'I'm alright Jack' of all.

 

[Putitout]

Google Search

Before Thatcher, owning your own house was as hard as it is now, so in that respect alone life wasn’t easier . In general the demands of life change but in the essentials it’s not harder now, than it was pre 70s .I say that having experienced both periods.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Google Search

Before Thatcher, owning your own house was as hard as it is now, so in that respect alone life wasn’t easier . In general the demands of life change but in the essentials it’s not harder now, than it was pre 70s .I say that having experienced both periods.

I asked Grok the following:

Was it easier to get a home to live in within England per population and proportion of income before Thatcher took over as PM than it is now?

I received a lengthy and detailed response (you are welcome to check) but I'll paste the conclusion.

Conclusion:

It was significantly easier to get a home to live in within England before Thatcher became PM in 1979 compared to now, both per population and proportion of income. In the 1970s, lower house price-to-income ratios (4.1 vs. 7.7–8.8 today), smaller proportions of income spent on housing (9–15% vs. 20–45%), and a robust social housing sector (6.5 million council homes vs. 2.2 million) made housing more accessible. Population growth and reduced housing supply have further strained affordability today, with high deposits and prices locking many out of homeownership and affordable renting. Thatcher’s policies, particularly Right to Buy, contributed to this shift by reducing social housing without adequate replacements, though other factors like population growth and market dynamics also play a role.

 

[steeleye20]

I asked Grok the following:

Was it easier to get a home to live in within England per population and proportion of income before Thatcher took over as PM than it is now?

I received a lengthy and detailed response (you are welcome to check) but I'll paste the conclusion.

Conclusion:

It was significantly easier to get a home to live in within England before Thatcher became PM in 1979 compared to now, both per population and proportion of income. In the 1970s, lower house price-to-income ratios (4.1 vs. 7.7–8.8 today), smaller proportions of income spent on housing (9–15% vs. 20–45%), and a robust social housing sector (6.5 million council homes vs. 2.2 million) made housing more accessible. Population growth and reduced housing supply have further strained affordability today, with high deposits and prices locking many out of homeownership and affordable renting. Thatcher’s policies, particularly Right to Buy, contributed to this shift by reducing social housing without adequate replacements, though other factors like population growth and market dynamics also play a role.

Good research S, for myself comparing the 1970's to now I wouldn't have a sniff of buying a 3-bedroomed terrace in Beckenham as I did then.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

Whenever you hear a boomer spouting off about how it was as hard or harder for them than it is now, you only have to say the average home is 9 times more than the average gross income today. They pause for several seconds and struggle to carry on the debate.

 

[georgenorman]

Whenever you hear a boomer spouting off about how it was as hard or harder for them than it is now, you only have to say the average home is 9 times more than the average gross income today. They pause for several seconds and struggle to carry on the debate.

Average UK house price is £265,497. Average UK gross income is £37,430. How is that 9 times?

 

[martin2412]

I asked Grok the following:

Was it easier to get a home to live in within England per population and proportion of income before Thatcher took over as PM than it is now?

I received a lengthy and detailed response (you are welcome to check) but I'll paste the conclusion.

Conclusion:

It was significantly easier to get a home to live in within England before Thatcher became PM in 1979 compared to now, both per population and proportion of income. In the 1970s, lower house price-to-income ratios (4.1 vs. 7.7–8.8 today), smaller proportions of income spent on housing (9–15% vs. 20–45%), and a robust social housing sector (6.5 million council homes vs. 2.2 million) made housing more accessible. Population growth and reduced housing supply have further strained affordability today, with high deposits and prices locking many out of homeownership and affordable renting. Thatcher’s policies, particularly Right to Buy, contributed to this shift by reducing social housing without adequate replacements, though other factors like population growth and market dynamics also play a role.

Those house prices to income percentages probably just apply to the actual house price. What it doesn't address is that today's interest rates are significantly lower, and people these days have the option of spreading their mortgages over much longer periods should they need to.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Those house prices to income percentages probably just apply to the actual house price. What it doesn't address is that today's interest rates are significantly lower, and people these days have the option of spreading their mortgages over much longer periods should they need to.

I put your case to Grok and it concluded thus:

Your acquaintance is overstating their case. While lower interest rates (until 2022) and longer mortgage terms mitigate monthly payment burdens, they don’t make housing as affordable as in the 1970s. The house price-to-income ratio was much lower then (4.1 vs. 7.7–8.8), mortgage payments took a smaller income share (15–20% vs. 43–53%), and social housing provided a safety net absent today. High deposits, larger loans, and increased total interest over longer terms outweigh the benefits of modern mortgage flexibility. Their points are valid considerations but don’t negate the data showing housing was significantly easier to access pre-Thatcher, both in cost and availability.Conclusion: Your acquaintance is partially right but overstates the impact of lower interest rates and longer terms. These factors don’t close the affordability gap, as today’s higher prices, larger loans, and reduced social housing make homes harder to get than in the 1970s, per population and income proportion.

 

[HKOwen]

Those house prices to income percentages probably just apply to the actual house price. What it doesn't address is that today's interest rates are significantly lower, and people these days have the option of spreading their mortgages over much longer periods should they need to.

Back in the day, people would sacrifice nice to haves like expensive holidays, fancy cars etc etc to make mortgage payments.

Today peolpe seem to think they have a human right to spending on non essential nice-to haves and still be in a position to readily afford a mortgage.

One major difference generationally was when right to buy came in.

One of my kids shared a 3 bed ex council flat near Kentish Town. It was sold for 600K in 2022.

The council tenants in the retained flats in the block likely had incomes ranging from zero to perhaps 30K ish.

That that would be a multiple of around 20

The average cost of housing is a totally false lens though which to view prices as the location makes a massive difference.

 

[HKOwen]

Labour doubling down on manifesto pledges of no extra income tax or VAT and National Insurance ( although that one's already broken )

So where and on who can they turn to tax.

Be worried if you have a property or intend to buy one
Be worried if you have a private pension plan, retired or not
Be worried if you drive
Be very worried if you travel abroad
Be very worried if you have a net worth of 750K or more including your home
Be super worried if you are a loandlord
Be super worried if you earn in excess of 75K per year

and so on and so on

I suspect Reeves will go on trumped up health reasons and the new chancellor will blame everything on her and change direction claiming she insisted on manifesto pledges that were not possible.

No surprises when you have someone who can lie and self promote without batting an eyelid and has insufficient intellect or experience for the role, although applies to almost all the current Cabinet

If she is forced out she can get free legal advice from Jonathan Reynolds, the never was a solicitor

Again did she shed a tear for freezing pensioners, displaced school children or the farmer who killed himself because of her farm inheritance policy

Hopefully good riddance to bad rubbish but what follows may well be worse as Rayner is calling the shots now

 

[Badger11]

Labour doubling down on manifesto pledges of no extra income tax or VAT and National Insurance ( although that one's already broken )

So where and on who can they turn to tax.

Be worried if you have a property or intend to buy one
Be worried if you have a private pension plan, retired or not
Be worried if you drive
Be very worried if you travel abroad
Be very worried if you have a net worth of 750K or more including your home
Be super worried if you are a loandlord
Be super worried if you earn in excess of 75K per year

and so on and so on

I suspect Reeves will go on trumped up health reasons and the new chancellor will blame everything on her and change direction claiming she insisted on manifesto pledges that were not possible.

No surprises when you have someone who can lie and self promote without batting an eyelid and has insufficient intellect or experience for the role, although applies to almost all the current Cabinet

If she is forced out she can get free legal advice from Jonathan Reynolds, the never was a solicitor

Again did she shed a tear for freezing pensioners, displaced school children or the farmer who killed himself because of her farm inheritance policy

Hopefully good riddance to bad rubbish but what follows may well be worse as Rayner is calling the shots now

Be worried if you breath eat and drink. 😀

 

[Badger11]

I put your case to Grok and it concluded thus:

Your acquaintance is overstating their case. While lower interest rates (until 2022) and longer mortgage terms mitigate monthly payment burdens, they don’t make housing as affordable as in the 1970s. The house price-to-income ratio was much lower then (4.1 vs. 7.7–8.8), mortgage payments took a smaller income share (15–20% vs. 43–53%), and social housing provided a safety net absent today. High deposits, larger loans, and increased total interest over longer terms outweigh the benefits of modern mortgage flexibility. Their points are valid considerations but don’t negate the data showing housing was significantly easier to access pre-Thatcher, both in cost and availability.Conclusion: Your acquaintance is partially right but overstates the impact of lower interest rates and longer terms. These factors don’t close the affordability gap, as today’s higher prices, larger loans, and reduced social housing make homes harder to get than in the 1970s, per population and income proportion.

I remember in the 1970's the credit squeeze. Couples had to make nice with their local bank manager (remember him, gone with the Dodo and the family GP). Basically they would only give out X number of mortgages each month so even if you could afford it you were in a queue.

I don't know the stats but it certainly seemed hard pre Thatcher to buy a home although rents weren't that bad.

But as others have pointed out my parents generation saved up for stuff and denied themselves. They would go out once a week certainly not spend money in coffee shops, clothes and holidays were relatively expensive and seen as a treat.

Today young people waste a lot of their money on must have cell phones deals, social life, and those bloody coffees.

I know house prices and rentals have gone up but most people are simply not prepared to save or make sacrifices.

My neighbours son is a teacher and moans that he can't afford to rent so he's moved back in with her. What he forgets to mention is that he only works 3 days a week (his choice). She has let him, if that was me I would have told him to start working full time.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Whenever you hear a boomer spouting off about how it was as hard or harder for them than it is now, you only have to say the average home is 9 times more than the average gross income today. They pause for several seconds and struggle to carry on the debate.

A lot of them don’t even blink in the face of the data - they just pivot to talking about coffees and avocado on toast.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I remember in the 1970's the credit squeeze. Couples had to make nice with their local bank manager (remember him, gone with the Dodo and the family GP). Basically they would only give out X number of mortgages each month so even if you could afford it you were in a queue.

I don't know the stats but it certainly seemed hard pre Thatcher to buy a home although rents weren't that bad.

But as others have pointed out my parents generation saved up for stuff and denied themselves. They would go out once a week certainly not spend money in coffee shops, clothes and holidays were relatively expensive and seen as a treat.

Today young people waste a lot of their money on must have cell phones deals, social life, and those bloody coffees.

I know house prices and rentals have gone up but most people are simply not prepared to save or make sacrifices.

My neighbours son is a teacher and moans that he can't afford to rent so he's moved back in with her. What he forgets to mention is that he only works 3 days a week (his choice). She has let him, if that was me I would have told him to start working full time.

How do you come to that conclusion?

 

[Teddy Eagle]

How do you come to that conclusion?

There are just more things to spend money on now and in the past credit cards weren't around, or at least as prevalent, so if the cash wasn't there people went without.
One suggestion to the problem of rising house prices is to change the system so that estate agents act for the buyer rather than the seller. Whereas they currently attract business by trying to set prices as high as possible and benefit from the increased percentage they would be trying to find the best deal for the buyer.

 

[Badger11]

How do you come to that conclusion?

I think I made it clear it's just my opinion.

I worked in a bank my much younger colleagues were on good salaries but forever moaning they couldn't afford a mortgage and yet they were out most work evenings.

Interestingly we had a large group of Asians in our department, unlike the others they brought in their breakfast and lunch from home you didn't see them wasting their money. They all had property and yet were earning the same.

Just walk down Lewisham high street and check out the motorcycle guys queuing up at the fats food places. Lewisham is supposed to be one of the more deprived areas of London.

Most people (not all) have choices how they spend their money.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I remember in the 1970's the credit squeeze. Couples had to make nice with their local bank manager (remember him, gone with the Dodo and the family GP). Basically they would only give out X number of mortgages each month so even if you could afford it you were in a queue.

I don't know the stats but it certainly seemed hard pre Thatcher to buy a home although rents weren't that bad.

But as others have pointed out my parents generation saved up for stuff and denied themselves. They would go out once a week certainly not spend money in coffee shops, clothes and holidays were relatively expensive and seen as a treat.

Today young people waste a lot of their money on must have cell phones deals, social life, and those bloody coffees.

I know house prices and rentals have gone up but most people are simply not prepared to save or make sacrifices.

My neighbours son is a teacher and moans that he can't afford to rent so he's moved back in with her. What he forgets to mention is that he only works 3 days a week (his choice). She has let him, if that was me I would have told him to start working full time.

I suspect overall some of that is true....diligent past/lazy present...but probably not as much as we'd prefer it to be when it comes to people looking to buy houses....the 70s saw whole workers unions looking for three day weeks....the point in question was how easy was it for Joe average to own a home.

The stats don't lie.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I think I made it clear it's just my opinion.

I worked in a bank my much younger colleagues were on good salaries but forever moaning they couldn't afford a mortgage and yet they were out most work evenings.

Interestingly we had a large group of Asians in our department, unlike the others they brought in their breakfast and lunch from home you didn't see them wasting their money. They all had property and yet were earning the same.

Just walk down Lewisham high street and check out the motorcycle guys queuing up at the fats food places. Lewisham is supposed to be one of the more deprived areas of London.

Most people (not all) have choices how they spend their money.

But surely you accept that a few anecdotal examples from your own life don't really hold up against nationwide statistics and data? Concluding that a whole generation just aren't as responsible as people used to be based on little more than a feeling is not really reasonable.

A small 1bed flat in Lewisham now costs around £1750 per month to rent, or around £350k to buy... it's certainly no longer deprived.

Of course personal choices matter, but it feels unfair to ignore the bigger picture and fixate on relatively minor spending habits as the core of the issue.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

There are just more things to spend money on now and in the past credit cards weren't around, or at least as prevalent, so if the cash wasn't there people went without.
One suggestion to the problem of rising house prices is to change the system so that estate agents act for the buyer rather than the seller. Whereas they currently attract business by trying to set prices as high as possible and benefit from the increased percentage they would be trying to find the best deal for the buyer.

I'd have to look into it, but to my mind credit cards we much more prevalent in the 90s and early 2000s than they are now.

I find the implication that young people now don't 'go without' unfair - most young people now go without a reasonable salary, many of them go without decent living conditions as they pay exuberant rates to rent a small room in a flat share. They go without many of the social experiences which were the norm 20 years ago; pubs are empty, restaurants are empty, cinemas are empty, nightclubs are empty - none of them can afford to enjoy these things.

Vague soundbites about coffees and smart phones are just not a reasonable way to approach the topic - those things don't touch the sides.