The reason for my pessimistic thoughts

pickles110564

treliac wrote: »

We can't afford to give our children more than a little financial help (as we're expected to while they go through uni). My role has been to give them every support, encouragement and help to understand the benefits of achieving for themselves and of becoming independent in life.

Lets hope they learn from your good help and advice, my son has only learnt the best way to win at command and conquer from me at the moment.
Oh and that Ipswich Town will soon be a major footballing force one more.

ninky_2

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

Most people who lived in towns didn't even have gardens at the turn of the century they would have had a back yard. Have a look at some of the older terraced properties and the garden size they had.

My grandparents lived in the country and had a decent sized garden - in which they grew veg. The house was owned by the colliery not them.

In 1900 only 10% of people owned property. It's about 70% now.

There's a big difference between land that is "officially" owned and people effectively 'owning' it by having use of it. The land registry only came into existence in 1862. Before there was officialdom around property people did still have use of land. In 1900 a much greater section of the population would have lived in the countryside where the majority would have had land to grow vegetables etc etc.

The garden sized of a terrace property looks quite generous to someone like me who has NEVER had a garden. Plus the waiting lists for allotments are so ridiculous now (I've been on mine for almost 5 years, most are now closed), whereas even a couple of decades ago you were almost guaranteed an allotment if you applied for one.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

In 1900 a much greater section of the population would have lived in the countryside where the majority would have had land to grow vegetables etc etc.
.

I lived in a market town dating back from the 12th centry i can tell you from surviving houses that that is simply not true.

Town grew through trade so population is congregate in towns, the villages were again mainly based on minning etc.

the majority of the population as never lived in the countryside (unless you count the dark ages). More people now live in the countryside. Belive it or not farming as not happend from the 1900's onwards. People in the countryside rareley worked the land for them selves. if they did they would have had to have rented it (PS my wifs nan is 90 and her parents had a small holding near ludlow and they had to rent the land. It was on its own in the middle of no where and her usband still had to work for the land owner/farmer.)

ninky_2

Really2 wrote: »

the majority of the population as never lived in the countryside (unless you count the dark ages). More people now live in the countryside. Belive it or not farming as not happend from the 1900's onwards. People in the countryside rareley worked the land for them selves. if they did they would have had to have rented it (PS my wifs nan is 90 and her parents had a small holding near ludlow and they had to rent the land. It was on its own in the middle of no where and her usband still had to work for the land owner/farmer.)

sorry this is nonsense.

http://people.exeter.ac.uk/RBurt/exeteronly/HEC2005/Lecture2.htm

"Percentage living in towns rose from 1 in 4 in the early 18th century to 1 in 2 by mid-19th century and 2 out of 3 by early 20th century."

whether people actually owned land or not, affordable and local land to rent used to be readily available. as was common land for grazing animals etc. i'd like to see the response to people wandering with grazing livestock in clapham common now.