in wondering what this generation of enforced renters are going to do

[mustbetimeforacreamtea]

When they reach retirement and can't afford commercial rents on a pension? What happens then?

Even if Cameron, Miliband et al are at some point convinced that the housing situation needs to change I don't think there is any real solution to the problem that can be implemented any time soon.
I agree that nobody should have to live in substandard accommodation. I agree that nobody should have to move against their wishes due to tenancies being revoked or not renewed. But I also think that nobody should have to move due to repossession when they lose their job and can no longer afford their mortgage. Nor should home owners be forced to live in sub standard conditions due to loss of income meaning that repairs on homes cannot be carried out. I think govt help should be available to enable tenants or home owners to live in a decent property without the threat of homelessness.
I am looking at things differently and understanding that some people will never be able to get on the housing ladder due to either circumstances or house prices in the area which they need to live. I still think that a proportion of the people complaining about not being able to afford a house could afford one if they were prepared to look at other options in other areas.
I don't think the govt can afford to build the amount of new local authority Homes that we need to rectify the current housing problem. They should put an immediate stop to right to buy to prevent more council houses being sold.

'right to buy' sounds great,
Ostensibly offering the less well off an opportunity for upward social mobility.

It has infact ensured that all but the wealthy can never have a secure and affordable place to live.

It has infact ensured that all but the wealthy can never have a secure and affordable place to live.

As much as I hate right to buy with a passion I don't agree that only the wealthy can ever have a secure and affordable place to live. I know lots of people who are not wealthy and they have secure and affordable places to live.

Suzzanne surely you mean NONE but the wealthy?

No, but I ought to have been more concise

Oh I see sorry! I've re-read it now!

My point is that instead of reducing economic inequality 'right to buy' has increased and entrenched the gap between the haves and the have nots.

A kind of 'I'm alright Jack, pull up the ladder' policy

It has definitely defined the gap between the haves and have nots, although some people who have bought under right to buy are just managing their mortgage payments on low incomes.
I think the worst thing is that some people have purchased under right to buy and then rented the houses out a few years later at private rental prices.

Yeah, talk about having your cake and eating it! :( :(

It might not be the solution but it will enable people who want to buy property right now get onto the ladder. Buying something affordable will provide somebody the security of not relying on short hold tenancies. It will also help improve those communities which have few owner occupiers and have too many empty properties.
At the end of 2013 over 600,000 properties were stood empty. We need to bring them back into use and sell them or rent them at affordable prices. The areas those houses are in are not considered desirable but that can be changed if enough of the houses become occupied.

www.emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/empty-homes-statistice-201112/

And isn't that how the housing cycle works?

Some areas are cheap, the next affordable/doer upper places.. they get bought and done up... move on tot he next.

Some places are really expensive, fall into genteel disrepair over the years as other areas become more affordable and then desirable, and eventually become the next affordable areas.

The problem with building in areas where people want to live is that the land there is either very scarce or costs a premium (often a mixture of both) and the more expensive the land is the more the houses built on that land will cost.
People can commute to work from areas which are currently derelict. People do not have to live on top of their place of work. Pretty villages don't have a lot of employment options but people still want to live there and will commute to work. If areas are regenerated properly people will want to live there.

And if the areas are viable the government can offer tax breaks to get businesses in... as they have in many places over many decades.

People can commute to work from areas which are currently derelict. People do not have to live on top of their place of work

You're correct, but commuting isn't cheap and since we're already talking about people having to stretch themselves/make financial sacrifices to afford to buy, then a substantial hike in their commuting costs will, in some cases, put them back to square one.

When I was made redundant last year I considered applying for jobs in London, which was feasible to commute to in terms of time, as there is obviously a much bigger employment market there. The annual season ticket from my then-nearest station, 50 minutes from London, was just under £6,000. That didn't include either daily parking or bus fare to/from the station. Just to be no worse off than I already was I would have had to get a job offering around £8k p.a. more than my previous salary, and that wasn't happening.

That's assuming there are public transport options available from the currently undesirable areas or that people have the wherewithal to run a reliable car (while still making those necessary financial sacrifices, don't forget).

Commuting doesn't necessarily mean commuting a hundred miles everyday. A commute to where work is available can mean as little as 10 or 15 miles. If you look around a lot of Northern towns work can be found 10 miles or so away from areas which currently have a lot of empty homes. Salford is a good example: it was a mill and factory area which became quite derelict in areas after the industries shut down. It has now gone through by period of vast regeneration and people are returning to the area. Salford has gained new employment through media city in Salford Quays and other new companies but the reality is that a lot of people go into the city centre to work (only a few miles).
London is unlike most other areas of the country as far as commenting is concerned as you really need to live a considerable distance from the city of a London to make living affordable for anybody on a normal or average wage.

I'm not sure about building on brownfield land due to the unknown health concerns. I know of an area of brownfield land which is currently being considered for housing development. This piece of land has previously been deemed unsuitable for building houses on due to high levels of methane and other gases being emitted from the ground. It is a site which was previously used for landfill of some description. They don't know what the health risks will be for people living on and around this ground if it is developed and yet it looks likely that plans for development will be passed very soon. They have stated that there could be health risks involved for people living nearby during the development phase. I don't think we should be considering building on this type of land. I Would much rather see empty homes bought back into use first.

Commuting often costs thousands.

Depends on how far you commute and by what means.

I once commuted 'only' 15 miles - 30 miles a day. Due to transport issues, it meant I had to run a car. Even to car share, you have to do your share, with your car. And before someone suggests cycling, your work has to have facilities for you to clean up when you get there before starting work. And it may take too long if you have kids in school or childcare and your partner swaps shifts with you.

Due to transport issues, it meant I had to run a car.

That is an infrastructure issue that can be resolved as part of a regeneration plan. There is little excuse for the very poor public transport network that we have in this country.
My DH commutes 15 miles to work and usually goes by car because it is quicker and more convenient but when he didn't have a car he managed on the bus and it cost him £15 per week. Even that short distance did impact on his quality of life as he was spending a good chunk of the day travelling. His time on the bus could have been halved if we had a decent bus network.
I Would never suggest anybody cycle to work because I don't think it is right for people to be going about the office or factory stinking of stale sweat.
I think there are ways to make commuting easier and current derelict areas more accessible for public transport but the govt are not prepared to make these things a priority.

Missunreasonable my DH cycles to work, but his workplace does have a shower...

Most workplaces don't have showers though or suitable places to change.