A cry of anguish

ILW

I find that a fair few of the whingers when pushed, seem to be very fussy about what areas they are prepared to live in. suggest say Woolwich or Plumstead and they dismiss is out of hand. Very spoilt attitude.

There are loads of houses for less than £150k within 30 miles of central London for example.

ruggedtoast

ILW wrote: »

I find that a fair few of the whingers when pushed, seem to be very fussy about what areas they are prepared to live in. suggest say Woolwich or Plumstead and they dismiss is out of hand. Very spoilt attitude.

There are loads of houses for less than £150k within 30 miles of central London for example.

Do you want to live in Woolwich?

Have you ever lived in Woolwich?

Have you ever even been to Woolwich?

Why should young people have to live in godawful parts of London so that high property prices can benefit you?

michaels

I lived in Peckham/New Cross border right on the A20/A2 cos the rent was cheap and I was saving for a deposit, didn't worry me.

chewmylegoff

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Do you want to live in Woolwich?

Have you ever lived in Woolwich?

Have you ever even been to Woolwich?

Why should young people have to live in godawful parts of London so that high property prices can benefit you?

Who should have to live in Woolwich?

When I first moved to London I lived in some pretty rubbish areas, including personal highlights of lodging in elephant and castle, and living in a horrid shack in leyton. That's just life isn't it - you live in a rubbish cheap area when you start out and move on to nicer places as you get on in life and earn more money.

What alternative system do you propose for allocating housing other than by relative wealth? Practically how would it work?

Brallaqueen

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've given up on arguing over the generation thing on here. There is no point, it's populated by a large amount of older, wealthy people without children.

Look at most newspaper articles that allows comments and whether it's the telegraph, the guardian or the BBC, all follow the same route when it comes to the generation gap...and it cerainly appears to be at odds with the hatred for the younger generations on here.

SINK, 29, sub 20k wage, bought a flat. Bollox to the generation thing.

Brallaqueen

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The first "bargain" you linked to, which is almost 2 miles from Wellingborough train station, would cost a commuter £5360 in post tax income to actually travel into London Bridge each year.

If they were unlucky enough to need to use the tube this would rise to £6100 a year.

How do you expect someone on an average wage to afford this, pay a mortgage, pay childcare, and go to work? Oh look they can't, they have to remain amongst the working poor in London. Unable to really afford to rent, unable to buy, unable to have kids with or without sanctimonious internet commentards carping about living within their means and tightening their belts.

I can't afford 200,000 anything or anywhere but hey! God forbid people prioritise - a house big enough for a family or a pokehole in London? Wellingborough might be the !!!! end of the Midlands but at least you get some room for your money within an hour commute.

Loughton_Monkey

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Who should have to live in Woolwich?

When I first moved to London I lived in some pretty rubbish areas, including personal highlights of lodging in elephant and castle, and living in a horrid shack in leyton. That's just life isn't it - you live in a rubbish cheap area when you start out and move on to nicer places as you get on in life and earn more money.

What alternative system do you propose for allocating housing other than by relative wealth? Practically how would it work?

Judging from this post.....

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Or maybe all the landlords could forego a month's rent every year for the same purpose.

Those with the broadest shoulders and all that.

....ruggedtoast is definitely a fully paid up Marxist. Hence in this country, all houses would be owned by the Government. The Prime Minister (Ken Livingstone) would allocate a small high-rise apartment to people depending upon their past loyalty to 'The Party'.

You and I would have the luxury of living in gulags.

.... probably in Woolwich.

Generali

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

You and I would have the luxury of living in gulags.

.... probably in Woolwich.

Maybe we could start by sending Ars**al FC back there.

ILW

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Do you want to live in Woolwich?

Have you ever lived in Woolwich?

Have you ever even been to Woolwich?

Why should young people have to live in godawful parts of London so that high property prices can benefit you?

Yes I have lived in Woolwich, then bought is what was considered a cruddy "inner city" south London area as the prices were what I could afford.
Never saw it as a problem, which may explain something on generational attitudes.
You seem to have a surprisingly snobbish outlook RT.

StevieJ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Who should have to live in Woolwich?

Even The Ar s e moved out