On Free higher education:
I can assure you that for the postwar generations this really isn’t true
Its factually true based on historic and ONS stats. I note you fudged the numbers upthread by lumping a whole bunch of on the job training schemes and self funded higher education as "free higher education". It wasn't. A nurse with 5 O levels going to work as a nurse and receiving on the job training or an apprentice (no formal qualifications needed usually) doing day release were not getting "free education" - they were taking low paid work, often indentured for apprentices with employers covering the short term fees. They were not attending "free" higher education full time or part time.
Many of those HNDs and ONDs were done at evening classes alongside a full time job and with participants paying the tuition fees. Some employers would contribute to the fees but by no means all.
Girls were routinely discriminated against in education - less grammar school or HE places for girls than boys. Poor families might scrape together the cost of sending a bright boy to grammar but would baulk at the cost of sending a girl (no fees but the ancillary costs were much higher). The attitude that there was no point in girls staying on at school was widespread and restricted many bright girls from building careers and qualifications.
How do you square this with the historically very generous levels of social support and social housing in the postwar period, sold off and removed in the 80s onwards and not available today?
Post war social housing was usually shockingly bad quality. There was some good stock but much of what was in cities and industrial towns was poor quality, war damaged and often temporary. I was born on the boundary of boomer/X and grew up in overcrowded, damp poor quality housing as did all my friends. My generation were also the first to really benefit from mass vaccination but my older friends could all describe at least one loss of a child or seriously damaged child in the family due to being born the wide range of vaccinations enjoyed by younger generations. I also didn't know a single family where one parent was full time at home - that was a luxury position for the middle classes. The women I knew all worked although many did so on shifts, early mornings etc so were classified as "housewives".
Property prices have risen madly (as they have across Europe in widely differing political regimes) I agree but interest rates are much lower, access to credit is easier and the standard of material living people take for granted as "ordinary" would have been considered the height of luxury by 60s/70s standards. Then as now the way to get on the property ladder for many was help from parents. Then as now there were haves and have nots. Most adults continued to live with parents until marriage and even then often lived with one set of parents, there was no concept of "living independently" or having the means to so do unless you were in a well paid professional job. If you had to move for ordinary work you would be lodging or at best in a bedsit.
You have a very one-track vision of the past
I have a WC memory of my past and the community I grew up in, even though I'm not your target boomer group - things were better in my childhood than for my older peers. That was the majority of the population.
Your memories seem to me to be very much of rose tinted MC life which in every generation is more comfortable and easier but was not the norm for most people. I note also your complete dismissal of the impact of the "shadow of war" on the childhood of older boomers in favour of a tired old "rich bastards" trope.
My biggest objection to this generational nonsense though is that its a nice fudge for lobbying liberals who don't actually want to make the changes needed to reduce inequality within generations. ie actual meaningful changes.