March for Homes

mayonnaise

antrobus wrote: »

Sky News says about a 1,000 people turned up. The Guardian says there were 2,000.

It was a bit chilly though.

ess0two

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Break out the violins and cue the Hovis ad.:D:D

When my dad bought his London house in his late 30s it cost just over twice his salary - when he retired it was worth 10 times his final salary and he was earning a lot more!

Do you have any concept as to the price of housing now in London relative to salaries. Even in Barking and Dagenham the average house price is £250,000 - that's ten times median wages - so say you had a £30k deposit you would need to be earning £60k+ at 3.5 times salary for the delights of Dagenham. And that is way cheaper than almost anywhere else. Yes - they can leave London and the south east - but that is where the work is!

Its not like it was in your day at all! So try not to sneer at young people struggling to get on - and don't suggest if they didn't spend £300 on an ipad they could easily afford £300k for a decent one bed flat! which is not far off the going rate now in many parts even of east London.

PS Its Saturday - perhaps they do work Monday to Friday? Although why they are bothering marching on City Hall on a Saturday is beyond me - Boris is only there weekdays - only the low wage security staff who definitely couldn't afford to buy a home in London now will be there.

Cue another violin,why should I sacrifice,a new motor,a holiday,i want what my parents took years to achieve..its just not fair.

Windofchange

It's alright, the 2008 crash part two is just around the corner. Grab your seats and hold on tight. Anyone for a new build? One careful owner, never lived in, yours for a pound.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Windofchange wrote: »

It's alright, the 2008 crash part two is just around the corner. Grab your seats and hold on tight. Anyone for a new build? One careful owner, never lived in, yours for a pound.

Yay, then you'll finally get what you want, something for nothing.

chewmylegoff

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

"Houses for Homes NOT Profit"

Presumably this statement means that you advocate the nationalisation of the entire house building industry and think that the government should be the landlord for everyone who rents.

I don't fancy paying another god knows how much of my income over in order to further subsidise the housing costs of people who choose to live in London, personally.

chucknorris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Presumably this statement means that you advocate the nationalisation of the entire house building industry and think that the government should be the landlord for everyone who rents.

I don't fancy paying another god knows how much of my income over in order to further subsidise the housing costs of people who choose to live in London, personally.

I really don't think that even he knows what he means. He just wants a magical solution to his problems that doesn't require that much effort from himself.

Generali

chucknorris wrote: »

I really don't think that even he knows what he means. He just wants a magical solution to his problems that doesn't require that much effort from himself.

What do we want?
Homes not for profit!
Who's going to pay for it?
Someone else!

Almost any scheme where someone on these boards calls for the Government to do something invariably involves someone else paying for it: the Boomers, the 1%, parents, cyclists, drivers. Anyone except them.

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

What do we want?
Homes not for profit!
Who's going to pay for it?
Someone else!

Almost any scheme where someone on these boards calls for the Government to do something invariably involves someone else paying for it: the Boomers, the 1%, parents, cyclists, drivers. Anyone except them.

Put so much more eloquently than I did. With far better humour too (which I am jealous about).

Generali

chucknorris wrote: »

Put so much more eloquently than I did. With far better humour too (which I am jealous about).

Very kind chucknorris. FWIW, I think you write and get your point across very well.

I suppose what I should really say is that you get a point across very well as I have no way of knowing whether I interpret you as you intend!

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

Very kind chucknorris. FWIW, I think you write and get your point across very well.

I suppose what I should really say is that you get a point across very well as I have no way of knowing whether I interpret you as you intend!

Thanks, I needed that, I've just been well laid into in the 'Discussion time' board for (I think) using the term 'care in the community', but ironically I used it in its purest form, meaning looking after someone, I think they thought that I used it in a derogatory way. Specifically my BIL who unfortunately is sectioned and not mentally stable. My wife frets over his welfare and always worries about him, so I try to do my best to make his life a bit better. But that is far harder than it sounds, it requires immense patience, something that I really have to work at, but from what I can see, I do very well where he is concerned, but it is so tiring.