DJKillaQueen

This is the crux. One umbrella service is fine, but it has to also be diverse. The reasons for one persons unemployment will not be the same as anothers. Long term unemployment is not just about the availability of jobs, it's about a whole range of things, some of which will be regional, others of which (including impoverishment, mental health, self esteem, skills and so on) are not easily solved with a bit of careers couselling and retraining. The LTU can never compete in the jobs market, they don't even have recent CVs or references. I think we'd be far better off with some kind of intermediate solution for the where training is followed by government funded placements with employers so that the LTU can get some kind of CV together and so on. Yes that will cost a lot of money but I think that's what it will take to give those people a real chance. Agencies that just give advice and provide basic resources have never been effective enough. The plan to reassess all those in IB is also one to be watched with caution too. Shifting someone to a cheaper form of benefit will instantly impoverish them more (by a minimum of ?25 per week). Fine if they truly are well enough to seek full time work but, and I think specifically those with mental health problems including depression, would be detrimental to their health. After all how do you assess someone who's condition varies from day to day, esp if it's a condition that can't be 'seen'. There are already sepcialist agencies that work with those on IB who want to find work. Duncan Smith speaks almost as if nothing currently is in place. I think he vastly overestimates the numbers of people that can be retuned to JSA from IB anyway. He might be better off lobbying the health department to put more resources into mental health provision if he truly wants to get people off IB because the average wait for counselling at the moment is 12 months on the NHS.

And in theory it should be an easy problem to solve but the Labour government had been disatrous for quality education, more obsessed with targets, league tables and I'd say fudge (the belief that all children are equal) than delivering the best education tailored to the individual child. You only have to look at some of the degree courses out there to know something is going wrong and indeed some universities have gone back to entrance exams because they have no way of determining which applicants are best, because the levels of literacy have dropped by so much. Similarly children that would do far better in vocational and practical apprenticeships have to wait until they leave school, having failed miserably, before being given the kind of training that engages them. Why can't those apprenticeships start at 14 for them like they used to? Worse still, young school leavers are paid ?30 in they go to college and the colleges are paid if they take them. The result is that some courses are filled with young people that are not interested in anything but the ?30 and colleges that are too scared to fail them because of the money they'll lose in turn. I KNOW this is going on. How on earth can any of that be good for employers or the young people themselves. Labour cared more about the numbers of people in higher education than it did about the quality of that education, not to mention the amount of extra paperwork burdened on teachers whose primary aim is to teach not fill out monitoring form after monitoring form.

I think thre are plenty of sociopaths in business yes. But when they buy a house I don't think they do think that they are depriving anyone of anything, because they don't see the predicament of those who lose out. They do all however know full well that it's a route to easy money or greater property wealth.....the most obscene nouveau rich term being 'property portfolio' but don't make the same connections to poverty and other things as you and I, and if they do, they don't care. There have always been commercial landlords like too. Who can forget Van Hoogstraten for example? We can't blame people for taking an advantage of an opportunity so much as we can blame those that create the opportunities, the products in the first place. The creators of buy-to-let understood exactly what they were doing and the consequences that might evolve and didn't care. Just like bankers, as long as mortgage lenders and estate agents get their commission and bonuses, who cares? They are the true 'scumbags'

From http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/9559/ids_outlines_plans_to_reform_the_welfare_system_(full_text)_.html where the full speech can be read. Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, today outlined his plans to reform the welfare system. Mr Duncan Smith said successive governments have failed to tackle the causes of poverty and also warned that for too many people work doesn't pay. He said he aimed to create "a welfare system that is fit for the 21st century." Key points: Five pathways to poverty - family breakdown, educational failure, addiction, debt, and worklessness and economic dependency ? have not been reflected in priorities of successive governments. Welfare expenditure, including pensions and tax credits, stands at ?185bn (2009/10). The proportion of people parked on inactive benefits has almost tripled in the past 30 years to 41% of the inactive working age population. The legacy of the system we have today stands at more than 1.5 million people on Jobseeker?s Allowance; almost 5 million out-of-work benefit claimants; and 1.4 million under-25s who are not working or in full-time education. The current benefit system is disincentivising people from working. Work Programme: Programme will include schemes to get people on the welfare-to-work scheme quicker, give more personalised support, and make benefits conditional on willingness to work. Pension reform: Phase out the retirement age; end the rules requiring compulsory annuitisation at 75; triple-locking the value of the Basic State Pension so that it will rise by the minimum of prices, earnings or 2.5%, whichever is higher The full speech makes interesting reading. There is acknowledgement that the gap of inequality is the biggest it has been since records began and that tackling poverty is a fundamental requirement to a healthy society. But we've heard this kind of speech before, from all parties and many MPs. There are plenty of ideas in there to discuss but as usual no mention of where all the extra jobs needed are going to come from. There is however mention of rewarding employers that essentially employ those they wouldn't normally employ. Is long term unemployment for example something that any government can solve? They've all tried for long enough and all have failed.

From what I know, he is well aware of the problem that first time buyers face. You are absolutely right Mitch...falling on deaf ears and all that. And yes Sarah Beeny should be deported... to umm.... now I'm stuck. To be fair though I don't think the buy-to let buyer is intentionally thinking 'lucky me' and 'damn the poor'. I just think they don't think about it all. The buy-to-let property is seen as just 'business' - investment and return, and there is of course never any room for the personal in that. But that is why only regulation can be effective to force change and of course those affected won't like it one bit. Things have to be done for the greater good sometimes though.

It's not a worthless exercise to give those too poor to have internet or computers at home access to that - that's just common sense. The point about universities and entry quotas, well that's easy to explain when there is a public schools system that guarantess those able to afford it a much higher quality and level of education. It's a complicated issue though. Every child who wants to learn should get equally high levels of education, so some of the fault has to lie at the general quality of state education. And if we can't bring state schools up to scratch then we should provide a quota of scolarships (state funded) to give the brightest pupils a chance at getting the education they would benefit from most. If more diadvantaged children went to public schools, more of them would get into the best universities. Even the state school system isn't uniform, grammar schools, independent schools, comprehensives, academies and so on. And yes there has been a general dumbing down of state education while the public school system sticks to more traditional standards of education. I wonder how many children are turfed out of public school unable to read, write, or add up properly.

Sigh.....but Mitch you are not lisitening to any of the core points being made, the rising gaps between rich and poor, the 2.6 million families in overcrowded accomodation. The rate of rise of property value compared to salaries. These are all really key problems that are going to continue to increase until what? The point is that we need to get back to making homes affordable (and that includes rents) for the mass and not the few. There's a fundamental difference between letting a market of more or less buyers affect prices and then making it possible for those that already own a property (without the capital required to become property tycoons)to buy again and again without any sizeable outlay. It was designed to and has served to keep the market bouyant and prices going up irregardless of the overall economic climate. The interesting thing is that the government did step in to instruct banks on how to deal with those that get into repayment trouble.....but then does nothing to protect other business from the effects of recession. It's like the housing market is some kind of holy grail. In a sense it is because no other commodity has such a high percentage of the population invested in it but the right to make a huge profit is no more divine than the right to own a home.

Bit of rant there. Errr 2.6 millions families are not better off than those a generation ago. They live in overcrowded accomodation because they can't afford suitable accomodation, either to rent or buy (something you have made no comment on whatsoever) and that is something that has steadily risen since 1985 (absolutely linked to the rise in rent and house prices and the selling off of low rent council homes). Similarly many young people will never be able to afford to buy the house their parents were able to buy 30 years ago either....so you are completely misguided in your belief that we are all better off. But let me ask you this, what would be so bad about a market where prices rise slowly (in line with salaries or inflation even)?.....it would still turn a profit but as a long term investment. Because it seems to me that you don't want to see any reduction in the profitability of the market. And that can only be justified by personal greed. There would be absolutely no problem with growth of say 10% over a decade. Whether you like it or not, the current sate of play can not go on. Either regluation comes back in or the market will eventually implode on itself, and many people will lose far more.

So DJKQ is going for the 'stick a hold on prices and wait 40 years' approach. No I'm not. There can still be flexibility in regulation (which is what we had before in fact). But given that the 'free market' roulette wheel has only culminated in global disaster, I am astonished that anyone would think targeted regulation a bad thing anymore. After all, we had no global crash after the 1930's Wall Street crash because regulation was introduced. Since that regulation was dissolved in the 80's we've had three crashes so I think the facts are clear as to which system creates sustained growth and stability. It's not unsolvable over time. And it is only a political hot potato because so many voters are invested or trapped in it. Politicians are scared of losing votes and THAT is their main reason for not doing anything (plus a total fear that anything but an unhindered free market is a bad thing). It's precisely that narrow view, that nothing can change, nothing can be done, that get's us into this mess. We had working practises and mortgage regulations that worked perfectly well before - they continue to work perfectly well in other countries and they can work perfectly well here again. All that it will mean is that the rapid rises that investors have enjoyed for the last thirty years will not be repeated over the next thrity years. And it won't affect the home owner that owns a 'home' one iota. In fact the only ones whinging about the idea of change are the biggest profiteers from the current system for blatently obvious reasons.

What you are essentially advocating is a long-term lowering of house prices, leaving mortgage holders paying off loans for a home that will never be worth what they paid for it. While in this state, they can never move. No I'm not. I am advocating regulation to slow the rate of house values from hereonin...so that salaries can grow at a faster rate and therefore close that gap a little. But what I would also say is that there is always the risk when you buy anything that it will go down in value...in fact most things we do buy are instantly worth less the moment we begin to use them. Again this is what is irrational about the housing market, the belief that it should never go down. People stupidly borrow at the limit of their means (and they are stupid to do so) knowing full well that interest rates can go up, and are as likely to do so within the lifetime of their mortgage as they are to stay the same or go down. That to me is even more demonstrative of the fragile and risky game we are playing at the moment by allowing rents and prices to be so high. The only reason why many people move so much anyway, is because they don't see property as the search for a family home, but as a ladder to ever greater capital wealth - totally the wrong global attitude to something as important as housing imo.

Plus most cars end up getting crushed after 10-15 years. Houses don't.

I disagree. The key is to stem the rate of rise to give salaries a chance to close the gap (which in itself would take decades). Negative equity is only an issue if the lender can no longer repay the mortgage and needs to sell. That only happens if owners lose some or all of their income, or interest rates rise above means to repay. In the 80's recession, 300,000 homes were repossessed. This time it is far less so far, thanks to the intervention of government with the banks, but it could still end up being just as bad. In that respect even, I would argue that banks don't need to reposess. There could be other options such as mortgage to rent. The bank only end up selling the house at auction at below market price anyway so I think there is definite room for something there that can keep people in their homes if their circumstances short term, change.

A friend just compared buy-to-let to this analogy. I take out a loan to buy a car and I let you use it Brendan providing you pay the loan off for me. Once the loan is paid off then I get to keep the car and then continue charging you to use it. That's money for nothing. And given that most buy to let properties are then passed on to letting agents who do all the work of management for the owner it really is equity for nothing. Put like that, it is pretty indefensible. Possible solution? Limit the proportion of mortgage that can be charged as rent to ensure that the investor pays for some of the asset themselves.

On further reading of that document, it suggests that the average mortgage repayment is 30% of the average income. Well consider this. more than half of all employees earn LESS than the average income. 13? million people in the UK live in households below the low-income threshold. This is around a fifth (22%) of the population. Over the last decade, the poorest tenth of the population have, on average, seen a fall in their real incomes after deducting housing costs while the richest tenth of the population have seen much bigger proportional rises in their incomes than any other group. The real stats are out there. For at least half of households, rents and mortgages are now at levels that are too high a proportion of income. That is the reality. And abolishing deposits will not make one iota of difference to that, but it would of course be helpful to those with out parents or inheritance to pay a deposit for them.

I think the point you make on securing tenancies Brendan...i.e locking in for 2-10 years is a good proposal. Outside London, relatively stable, or increasing slightly, and at between 13 and 20% depending on the region, over the last 8 years. Page 7 'Estimating Household Income' begins with 'Timely household income data are not widely available'...well done! It goes on to say 'there is a significant time lag between data collection and data availability, this is not ideal for the measuring and monitoring of affordability'....hmm discredits itself as an accurate document then before it even gets started. The fact reamins that 1.8 million people and families in this country can not afford to rent in the private sector....and that is just those we know about....what do you suggest we do for them? I don't have figures on how many of those in social housing are in overcrowded conditions but nationally it is estimated that at least 2.6 million households are overcrowded and in some boroughs of London that equates to 30% of households. What do you suggest we do about that? Given that there are 17.1 million families in the UK (by estimate) that's around 15% of households in unsuitable accomodation. Building new homes just delivers more of the same unless they are social landlord owned and exempt from right to buy.

Private landlords aren?t companies who are providing employment or increasing choice. They are just private individuals who are profiting to the direct detriment of someone else. And this is the moral issue. While that private lanlord gets to profit from renting a property, councils are expected to build affordable family homes and the tax payer tops up the rent on the private property with housing benefit! I'd say a good move would be to limit the buy-to-let market. Limit it to one property only unless you are set up as a commercial ltd company.

And actually you are saying much more than that - that people should be able to own a home of the type they want No we aren't. I've repeatedly pointed out the number of people in innaropriate overcrowded accomodation. You are conveniently ignoring half the problem. Add to that, that new builds have the smallest rooms in Europe. You obviously have absolutely no idea what is going on for many hard working families in this country. In terms of quality of housing, the vast majority of the UK population are better off then they have ever been, and those in real housing need are not a bunch of peiople complaining that they can't find a house they like that is close enough to the office. You are so off the mark it's embarassing. The gap between the rich and poor is getting wider. The prospects for upward mobility are worse than they've been for a long time and are getting worse. That's nothing to be proud of. The quality of life in this country (linked mainly to the cost of living) is going downhill for a large section of the population. In terms of the quality of housing, i.e. heating, sanitation etc this is true, but it should not be offered as justification for what is going on now. Let me ask you this, do you really think it is ok for rent to be as high as it is in proportion to most people's salaries? And do you think it should keep on rising at the same rate it has for the past 30 years? Or do you really not care? Personally I'd perfer a fair country where hard work and effort is rewarded in as equal measure as in realistically possible rather than the privileged minority bleeding everyone else dry and then whinging when their gravy train is challenged. Just stop being so greedy. Mitch And you can't expect the government to keep coming to the rescue of people who want to have three bedrooms and a garden. That's not what government is being asked for. A family shouldn't be expected to live in a two bedroomed flat because there is no other affordable accomodation for them. And a report given to the government (link posted earlier on here) shows that buy-to-let IS the main reason there has been no slack in the housing market in recent years. The government were warned about it and did nothing and yes you are right no politician does want to tackle it because it doesn't directly affect any of them. Labour did at least bring in decent homes legislation, although they didn't back it up with funds to local authorities to do all of the work needed.

Dave carnells excellent post demonstrates just where we are at perfectly.

It will make renting cheaper, but it won't make buying property significantly cheaper because demand will stay strong for as long as the economy is in OK shape and people are willing to pay lots to buy a house. But it would have an impact though (it's a system used in France for example). If you can't get a rent above a certain rate then you won't want to pay above a certain value for a property. There is then an increased abundance of property for sale (that would previously have been snapped up by investment buy-to-let) with either enough other first time or chain buyers or not. The market would respond to a shortage of buyers, initially with price falls and followed by growth in line with affordability (i.e. linked to income). Demand and affordability are two entirely different things. The situation could further be encouraged by reintroducing mortgage regulation. We've had all that before. The present climate is only serving property investors - the balance is extremely unfair. And finally, this is absolutely about left and right, because it's about economic freedom - two people saying I'm willing to sell you something for a price you're willing to pay, and vice-versa - and shouldn't involve the state unless its really, really necessary. We don't have price controls for food or clothes so why housing? There is no economic freedom for those at the bottom and never will be while upward mobility is made increasingly impossible of which property is seen as a key factor (and the whole idea behind Thatchers policy of right to buy). So you are contradicting yourself with that statement. What you are saying is that those that have should be able to get more and damn the rest no matter how hard they work. Secondly housing is an essential - good housing is extremely important for good health and social cohesion. If food became so expensive that people couldn't afford to eat properly the government would do somthing...it would be seen as immoral for food to be too expensive for so many people to buy. The same can be said of clothes. If someone froze to death because the cost of a jacket was so much that so many people couldn't afford one. So that blows your other comaprison into perspective too doesn't it.

After tax and so on 60k doesn't leave that much for house buying and that is the real crunch I think. Middle income families, the stalwart of house buying thirty years ago, are also being squeezed out. That's when even those in denial should be able to see just how serious the situation is beoming. You mention internal migration for cheaper properties, well we have aleady seen that happening (was formerly called yuppification). And as a result areas that were formerly very affordable become quickly unaffordable, so it doesn't really solve the problem in any great measure. The extreme of that of course being the damage done to rural communities where people who have grown up in a village all their lives can't find anything affordable to buy! Relatives are increasingly being forced to live further away from each other.

I've been patronised by incoherent left wing types before as well... Maybe so but the points I and other are making are nothing to do with left or right, just common sense. I've had a quick skip back through the thread to see if you or anyone else has come up with some concrete ideas about how you go about guaranteeing nice affordable homes for all There have been suggestions on how to slow the rate of future growth. This is achievable but requires regulation to do so. Other European countries have it and still have bouyant markets whilst not having the housing crisis we do. The consensus from various European agencies is that the UK market has been over inflated for years (but we are not very good at taking economic advice from anyone in this country). It's not about reducing the number of buyers, but controlling the rate of rise of prices so that it grows more in line with salaries than the rampant money spinning market for the wealthy that it's become. I also remember the 70s and early 80s, when far fewer people actually owned their own homes, and far more people were council tenants, and anybody who thinks that was some kind of paradise is seriously deluded. And just who has said it was paradise? The point made was simply that hard work could get Mr. Average his own home. Or do you not think Mr. Average who works harder than a good deal of the affluent should be able to own or rent a home big enough for his family? The mortgage market is demand led. There's no doubt that some lenders made stupid loans, but that was bad business practice rather than a result of any fundamental change in the legislative or regulatory environment, In the 70's under the terms of a mortgage you couldn't even rent out a room for money in your home. The rules HAVE changed on mortgage lending radically over the past 30 years - turning what was for many people a 'home' into a lucrative investment opportunity. Everytime the market tailed off (as out-pricing of salaries normally would have that effect on the buyer pool) a new product was invented to keep people buying (well the same buyers buying again and again) without any reagrd for the impact that such rapid inflation would have on so many ordinary people. Just look at this thread - everybody wants to buy a house (or wants everybody to be able to buy a house) - that's where the demand comes from. That's an assumption you are making but based on no kind of fact. I rent and am perfectly happy with that but am lucky enough to have a low rent property. For many people, buying is the only way they can ever see themsleves having a place big enough for their family. For others buying would be the cheaper option to the rent they pay, if only they could save a deposit...but wait...there's nothing left after the rent and other bills are paid. That in part is why many people who would be perfectly happy renting are seeking to buy. This is not about house prices only....it's not...it's about the knock on effect on rents too. NO-ONE can escape the clutches of it because we all need somewhere to live. Why do you think there are 1.8 million people on council waiting lists? Because they all desperately need affordable rents? "The Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) has said that the proportion of the average first-time borrower's income spent on mortgage interest payments dropped in November 2009 to its lowest level for six years, at 14.4%." I second Huguenot on this point. Interest is only part of the mortgage value... To me Dave it sounds as though you are saying, the market is fine, let it keep rolling along, and who cares if families are crammed into poor accomodaton? Who cares if so many people don't know why they bother working when they see so much of their hard earned cash spent paying someone else's mortgage? Here's one suggestion that would be for the better overall: Rent capping (instead of the comparative fair rent committees we have at the moment). If what Lanlords can charge is restricted to a year on year rise in line with inflation (just as local authority rents are currently regulated) then house prices will rise in an equally reasonable manner. The buy-to-let market will still roll along but investment with be a long term one. There really is no need for such a fast housing market. The economy won't die because the housing market grows at a slower rate - but we might just see a lot more people happier in their lives because they can finally afford to rent or buy somewhere big enough for themselves or their family. Do you really think there is anything wrong with that Dave?

Oh and another thing James, the majority of people are not earning the average wage...so the real ratio of salary to cheapest properties of many people is far higher than the 1:6 you quote. You know those figures are offset by high incomes and therefore give an impression that things aren;t as bad as suggested. Mr Average 30 years ago found an affordable house cost three times his salary compared to 6 times now? Well that is just not the reality. For most people the it's gone from 1:3 to 1:11.

Oh come now James...a true politicians answer. You really don't want to get into it do you? Rising population is not the over riding reason we've got here as you well know. You also know that nationally (or maybe you don't) there is more than enough housing stock to house people, and prove the point in the comment you make about the 5000 homes in Southwark. Well you guys had control of the council for eight years so why didn't you do something about those 5000 homes? You found money to build new offices in Tooley Street after all. Furthermore you know as well as I do that many coucil flats are housing families that need bigger homes. I have a woman above me with THREE children crammed into a 2 bedroom flat. She did have a husband. He left her recently because he couldn't take the stress anymore. So yet another mother becomes a single mother while trying in vain to get a bigger home via the bidding system. Lack of social houising especially family homes exists for one reason only...most of them were bought in the 80's under the right to buy scheme. How many of them are now still lived in as family homes even? The three bedroom flat next door to me, bought by the family that were moved in by the council as priority need is now rented out, including the sitting room. The rent collected not only pays the mortgage on it, but a good part of the mortgage on the 2nd home they were then able to by in Oxford using the leasehold council flat as security. Right to buy was never intended to make council tenants into buy to let investors. In fact do you have any views at all on the morality of all the points I and others have made above about the lack of regulation that culminated in self certified mortages? Do you even agree it can't go on as it has done?

There is no contradiction between, on the one hand, boosting social housing, changing planning laws etc., while at the same time recognising that it is pointless and (in my view, wrong) to try and legislate the property market out of existence. No-one has even suggested that a property market should not exist - merely suggested it should be returned to a long term investment opportunity rather than the short term profit making machine it has been moulded into by those moving the goalpoasts of legislation. For example, why on earth did we ever end up with self certified mortgages and even worse, end up selling houses to those who couldn't really afford them? If anything, the housing market was deregulated into boom and then propped up with the ludicrous examples of selling I've just given. There has been a concerted effort to NOT let the free market do the job it would have normally done when customers began to run out. Instead new products emerge to keep the customer base rolling along, the latest being the ludicrous part buy part rent.

I follow that by saying Dave that you assume the problems are limited to London. They are not. It's the same all over the country. Also the points I and others have been making have nothing to do with class warfare but a straight forward case of profit and value leaving salaries so far behind that half the working population are struggling to keep up. It's the growing size of the 'gap' that is the issue, not that there are low waged and high waged. I remember the prices of housing just prior to the start of deregulation in the 80's. I can remember a time when anyone on an average salary, perhaps with some overtime worked could just about afford to buy something, nothing fancy, but something. No other area, apart from finance has seen the level of profit in such a short time that housing has. And those that have benefited most, are the few that had money to spend in the early 80's. The baby boomers have had the best of everything to be honest, from free education to profit and early retirement but that's another discussion altogether. Credit was cheap and easy to get, and in the main it made good commercial sense for lenders to lend against property (and lots of people benefited from that). Banks have always lent against property. This was not something that came about because of cheaper credit! As we've seen, uncontrolled cheaper credit has been a disaster in the end anyway, with reckless borrowing and spending and ultimately the sub-prime disaster. Regulation came in after the crash of the 30's. It was designed to prevent such a thing ever happening again and it worked. But within 30 years of doing away with it we've seen two minor crashes and another major global crash. And duh - suddenly governments are saying we need regulation again! Of course we do...money and greed go hand in hand and bankers have shown just how irresponsible they are if left unchecked. In spite of those crashes, the housing market has never dipped significantly...continually propped up by further deregulation. In any event, if individuals hadn't got into the property rental market their places would have been taken by commercial landlords, because the returns were so good. Wrong again...market forces would have served to limit the rate of rise (because of the lack of commercial landlords compared to product and the same regulations that had kept things sane for decades) and we'd be in a much healthier position today as a result. The economy was never dependent on the health of the housing market, but has become so because of the deregulatory tinkering that was intended to keep fuelling the rise. I'm all in favour of tweaking the tax regime to make sure that landlords pay their share, relaxing planning restrictions to get some high density housing built in areas of high demand, What is needed are affordable family homes, not more high-rise high density flats. Again that is the attitude that says cram all the poor into a square mile and leave the wealthy to the luxurious space of the rest. We had that up until 100 years ago. It was a disaster that only served to create slums and ghettos. but if you want a 3 bed house for ?150k within 40 mins of the City, here's one And how can anyone on an average wage afford a mortgage to pay for it? I have a cousin in Liverpool. She earns 13K a year as a care worker for autistic children. She loves her job and it's an important job, but more than half her salary goes on rent for her and her three children. And she is average for Liverpool. I'm sorry to say it Dave but you have very little understanding of what this conversation is really about. Decent, ordinary, hardworking people being told by people like you that they have no right to have decent housing unless they have some high flying job or enjoy some privilege handed to them by luck of birth! The free market does NOT take care of everything and in recent years has been a complete disaster. A sane and healthy economy is one that balances growth and regulation....not one that leaves those in most control of the economy to do as they wish, which has ultimately been about maximising self interest rather than being part of the creation of a cohesive and balanced economy and society. And we are all going to pay for that.