Reading through Sel's post with regard to London, I'm guessing like me that she may live on the outer edge of the capital so we are very aware of the problems. There simply isn't enough affordable housing where I am, about 12 miles out, and as for living in central London it's beyond the earning power of anyone on an average salary. Rents in London are probably a complete anomaly anyway, I imagine that larger cities in the UK don't have quite the problems we have here and this has been exacerbated by foreign investors buying in in droves, although more expensive homes it has to be said, it still has a knock on effect.
My step daughter who commutes into central London has bought a cottage on the Surrey/Hampshire borders and pays a stonking £4,000 plus for an annual season which will rise again by something like 6%, I think. Many workers cannot afford to live anywhere near the capital so they have no alternative to fork out huge sums on commuting. I do take Eloethan's point that low paid workers, who work unsociable hours need to live further in.
Nevertheless, I don't see why the tax payers should have to stump up vast sums of money to accommodate families, where there isn't actually anyone working and who don't have any association with the city other than rolling up seeing a large house and asking the relevant council to house them in sometimes enormous houses that are valued at several million. When did it become mandatory that siblings in large families must be given a separate bedroom each?
Bob Crowe and Baroness Uddin both have the benefit of social housing, Bob Crowe doesn't even have any children living with him, they both earn salaries that run into six figures so why is this allowed and why is the tax pay expected to subsidize them?
Having said all that I don't agree with the bedroom tax because I appreciate there are precious few smaller units for people to trade down into.
Good Morning Wednesday 13th May 2026
Is Mumsnet down today (13th May)



