Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Stop being grabby and entitled and using false arguments to try to turn your mother into your servants

803 replies

Youlittlenightmare · 15/04/2026 02:58

Posting in AIBU for traction, not because I think I'm wrong - I know I'm right in fact :) But this is where many of the grabby, problematic mumsnetters turn up to have a whinge and make false arguments. So this is for all of you.

And let’s be clear, if you're a grandmother who genuinely loves caring for your grandchildren, good for you. This thread is not for or about you. If your own mother happily provides childcare and truly enjoys it, lovely. This thread is not or or about you either.

This is about dismantling a stubborn and deeply illogical belief that if a grandmother declines the burden of childcare, she somehow forfeits the right to see her grandchildren.

No one is owed childcare from their mother. End.

It does not matter whether she had help when raising you, other people’s sacrifices are not items on a balance sheet for you to cash in later. Older women are not public utilities, nor are their remaining years a communal resource to be allocated by their adult children. They are human beings with dignity, autonomy, and the absolute right to say no for any reason whatsoever.

They have already done the work. They raised their children. Their duty is complete.

But what is especially irritating is how often two completely separate things are deliberately conflated with the dreary refrain of “Well then she can’t expect visits from the grandchildren.”

This is a logical failure.

Childcare is work. It is labour intensive, draining, time consuming, and often physically demanding.

A family visit is not work. Bringing your children to see their grandmother, spending time together, sharing conversation and affection, that is family life. It is a relationship, not a work shift.

To collapse those into the same category is a false equivalence.

If you dislike your mother so much that visiting her feels like a burden, like work, then of course you definitely do NOT want her to shoulder the burden of your job of parenting. That would be quite mad, imagine wanting your children under the care of a woman you would prefer never to spend time with.

If seeing her is a chore and you consider it a job then asking her to work for you (generally for free) is absurd.

If she wants to see you more often than you can manage that is QUITE another matter, just see her when you can, like normal people do.

But if you love your mother, you will want to see her because she is family, because you enjoy her company, because relationships exist for their own sake.

That bond is not, and should never be, contingent on whether she performs even more physical labour after decades of already doing exactly that.

These are the three coherent possibilities - you visit your mother with the children because you love her and enjoy being together. Otherwise known as normal family life.

The second possiblity is that you do not want a relationship with your mother, in which case you would neither visit nor expect free labour from her.

The third possiblitiy is that your mother freely chooses to provide childcare, which is her decision alone and not something anyone is entitled to demand nor contingent upon anything else.

What is not logically defensible is weaponising access to grandchildren as punishment because she refused unpaid work. That's coercion dressed up badly in sentiment.

It's not complicated - family connection and visits are a relationship. Childcare is labour. These two concepts are not interchangeable, and one should never be made conditional on the other or compared to the other.

And finally those of you who claim the relationship with her grandchildren will be stronger if an exhausted older women is forced to do your job of parenting - maybe. Maybe not. Nobody has the slightest idea of how kids will feel about their grandparents or parents as they grow up and a lot of grandmothers would gladly relinquish a "closer" relationship with their grandchildren if it meant they could put their exhausted feet up after a lifetime of labour, or go out when they want as they want doing what they want, without first running it past their dictator daughters.

So, all of you who keep trying to confuse what is actually a very simple concept with this nonsense - just stop now.

If you are demanding child care from your mother and trying to couch it in any way as anything she "should" do because "reasons", trying to conflate famly visit with her doing unpaid work that she did for decades already - you're an awful person, and are perpetuating the misogyny of treating women like commodities to be shared.

Stop throwing a tantrum, get on with parenting your own kids and visit your mother, or don't. For many of you, not visiting would be doing her a favour.

I am an older woman who is happy to agree to the intensive labour of free childcare a couple of times a week because I choose to. An older woman who would instantly tell you exactly where to go if you ever asserted your entitlement or attempted to tell me what I "should" do with my own precious, irreplaceable and limited time on this earth. An older woman who will decline childcare if I want to, when I want to and be treated respectfully regardless.

Signed - an older woman who is sick of your entitled bullshit. We see you.

Stop it.

OP posts:
Butchyrestingface · 16/04/2026 22:46

Differentforgirls · 16/04/2026 20:12

That isn’t what happened though. There IS something wrong with tone policing women, shutting them down, saying they have dementia and calling them crazy.

The OP did a fair bit of shutting down of others on this thread, and modelled quite the combative and splenetic tone herself. Seeing as those posts appeared to have stayed up, God knows what the four that got lopped were like.

JHound · 16/04/2026 22:56

Yep the entitlement and misogyny here is weird.

Women have no use and should have no interests beyond childrearing. Theirs or their grandchildren.

It’s great to get family help but to EXPECT it baffles me. It’s the parents choice to have children.

echt · 16/04/2026 23:01

fortysumfing · 16/04/2026 20:37

OP is the bully. She’d hardly report herself!

While I can't see the deleted posts, nothing the OP has said meets the definition of bullying.

On the other hand, the responses of so many on this thread are terrible, especially the faux-naif enquiries after her mental health. Fuck. Off.

echt · 16/04/2026 23:03

Ricecakes101 · 16/04/2026 16:46

I'm guessing the op has been completely rejected by her daughter and that poor daughter is in therapy somewhere trying to recover from being parented by a narcissist.

That's it. Guessing. Try reading the OP's OP, where she writes of the childcare she does.

TheyGrewUp · 16/04/2026 23:15

JacquesHarlow · 16/04/2026 13:42

There is a lack of honesty on this thread from the children (current active parents who have young children) and what the grandparents in this scenario have voted for.

Say they're 65 or 70 years old.

In the mid 1980s when these "grandparents" were 26 or 31, it was Tory rule. People were voting for Thatcher in their droves, other parties couldn't get a look in.

Society has been fundamentally restructured since then, to a position where today's 'children' are adults in their 40s who are both working, to try and service a mortgage on vastly inflated house prices where the seeds were sown by....guess who.... the grandparents who voted to move us from an income economy to an asset economy.

So it makes me laugh how you have a society now where;

  • Some grandparents recognise that both parents have to work, so they add their "free" childcare into the mix to make sure their children can work even harder and maintain their position on the ladder
  • other grandparents just raise an eyebrow and say "i've done my time", and refuse to prop this house of cards up - they demand their children figure out a solution to the grandchildren childcare problem. But remember, they are often benefit from the high equity release and house price inflation that allows them to enjoy the retirement life that they feel they deserve

Neither version is right here or "correct'.

I'm just describing that the landscape we live on was determined by the voting choices of these lot.

The same people who complain bitterly about sewage in our waterways, but forget to see that privatisation was a choice, and that their clever little pension funds are built on that sewage.

The same people who complain about how young people can't get on the ladder "without help", but fail to see that the ladder was made steep by their voting choices.

Etc etc...

And they voted as they did because Wilson and Callaghan virtually destroyed the UK economy in the 1970s. I imagine you don't remember Denis Healey having to go to the IMF because the UK was bankrupt.

DH and I both worked in the 80s and had dc in the 90s. I had a few years off because I had 16 years of work behind me. My contemporaries largely didn't have that privilege. I had to give up work because ds was ill as a baby.

Very little grandparent help.

We won't live off the fat of our equity. It will be ring fenced for the children who have already had a lot. Neither will we be providing formal childcare.

I am deeply sorry that you resent my generation to such an extent. Why don't you try and compare your childhood to that of my contemporaries (65 to 70). Many of whom had no central heating, no indoor facilities, hand knits, a week in Bognor if they were lucky, the slipper at school if unlucky and about 5% went to university.

Katypp · 17/04/2026 07:02

TheyGrewUp · 16/04/2026 23:15

And they voted as they did because Wilson and Callaghan virtually destroyed the UK economy in the 1970s. I imagine you don't remember Denis Healey having to go to the IMF because the UK was bankrupt.

DH and I both worked in the 80s and had dc in the 90s. I had a few years off because I had 16 years of work behind me. My contemporaries largely didn't have that privilege. I had to give up work because ds was ill as a baby.

Very little grandparent help.

We won't live off the fat of our equity. It will be ring fenced for the children who have already had a lot. Neither will we be providing formal childcare.

I am deeply sorry that you resent my generation to such an extent. Why don't you try and compare your childhood to that of my contemporaries (65 to 70). Many of whom had no central heating, no indoor facilities, hand knits, a week in Bognor if they were lucky, the slipper at school if unlucky and about 5% went to university.

I wouldn't wsste you breath
They are not intetested in that or the inflexible working life parents of the 1990s had either. We were the generation that fought for the flexible working, better maternity leave and other benefits they all take for granted today, yet they are convinced we were all having a lovely time as SAHMs.
The only acceptable narrative on MN is today's young parents are suffering more than any other has done and are unuquely burdoned as they have to work and raise families.
They also seem to think that they are the only generation that has ever paid for older people's pensions and resent doing so.
Every generation is thrown curveballs. We had soaring interest rates, negative equity, 12 weeks maternity leave. When i started work, my retirement age was 60, now it's 67.
But you are talking to an empty room unless you sign up to the rhetoric that you had it easy compared to now. Then they will listen.

JacquesHarlow · 17/04/2026 07:17

TheyGrewUp · 16/04/2026 23:15

And they voted as they did because Wilson and Callaghan virtually destroyed the UK economy in the 1970s. I imagine you don't remember Denis Healey having to go to the IMF because the UK was bankrupt.

DH and I both worked in the 80s and had dc in the 90s. I had a few years off because I had 16 years of work behind me. My contemporaries largely didn't have that privilege. I had to give up work because ds was ill as a baby.

Very little grandparent help.

We won't live off the fat of our equity. It will be ring fenced for the children who have already had a lot. Neither will we be providing formal childcare.

I am deeply sorry that you resent my generation to such an extent. Why don't you try and compare your childhood to that of my contemporaries (65 to 70). Many of whom had no central heating, no indoor facilities, hand knits, a week in Bognor if they were lucky, the slipper at school if unlucky and about 5% went to university.

We won't live off the fat of our equity. It will be ring fenced for the children who have already had a lot.

And this is how I know that people are so deep now into this post-Thatcher universe, that they just don't get it anymore.

We are now in an asset economy. High house prices forever.

Propped up by people passing down tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds to their children, who then buy inflatedly high houses relative to their salaries.

'Young' people earning £40,000 if they're lucky, but who are living in houses worth £500,000.

Rewind the clock 40 years. Would any bank have lent to those income multiples? No.

So our society has already been gamed this way. And people are so far deep into it that they can't even see what's happening anymore - it's so normal as to have become unremarkable.

I am deeply sorry that you resent my generation to such an extent.

I don't "resent" you.

I am a beneficiary of it. I live in a house that was propped up by the same system.

but crucially, my DP and I both have to work to sustain it, and the childcare we need to support our ecosystem. We don't have (or would choose to use) family support from an older generation.

Just because I am a beneficiary of the system, or typical of those in the system, doesn't mean I can't comment on it.

Commenting on the societal factors that underpins the OPs post, doesn't mean I "resent" the generation that voted 3 times in a row for the gov that set it all up.

ThatFairy · 17/04/2026 07:23

Focacciaisyum · 16/04/2026 13:23

Honestly i don't really think its a 'British' attitude. It seems to be one that a particular group of British people who have been very used to being entitled to the best of everything without having to give anything back. I plan to help.out my kids when theyre grown. Not a regular 3 day a week thing, granted. But id love to have grandkids stay over for a night every few weeks to give them a night off, help in emergencies or just babysit so they can go out. I imagine most loving parents would.

I also don't think it's necessary. If people can't afford childcare maybe they need to look at having a cheaper mortgage you know living within their means. I think people should raise their own children, I know when my sister was doing it she was getting by on her husband's income she just wanted more money. That's fair enough, but my parents shouldn't have had to struggle for it. It really was difficult for them. If I get to be a grandmother I will want to have them stay over at weekends and in holidays but I won't be doing the school run, no way I did that for years and don't plan on going back there

TheyGrewUp · 17/04/2026 07:36

JacquesHarlow · 17/04/2026 07:17

We won't live off the fat of our equity. It will be ring fenced for the children who have already had a lot.

And this is how I know that people are so deep now into this post-Thatcher universe, that they just don't get it anymore.

We are now in an asset economy. High house prices forever.

Propped up by people passing down tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds to their children, who then buy inflatedly high houses relative to their salaries.

'Young' people earning £40,000 if they're lucky, but who are living in houses worth £500,000.

Rewind the clock 40 years. Would any bank have lent to those income multiples? No.

So our society has already been gamed this way. And people are so far deep into it that they can't even see what's happening anymore - it's so normal as to have become unremarkable.

I am deeply sorry that you resent my generation to such an extent.

I don't "resent" you.

I am a beneficiary of it. I live in a house that was propped up by the same system.

but crucially, my DP and I both have to work to sustain it, and the childcare we need to support our ecosystem. We don't have (or would choose to use) family support from an older generation.

Just because I am a beneficiary of the system, or typical of those in the system, doesn't mean I can't comment on it.

Commenting on the societal factors that underpins the OPs post, doesn't mean I "resent" the generation that voted 3 times in a row for the gov that set it all up.

Can you define "young" in relation to £40k because my young people and their partners (31/2, 28/9) aren't on £40k. Even the teacher earns more. Also DH and I are mid 60s. What makes you think we didn't both work. We are both still working. My mother worked, b 1936, my gran worked, b 1912. Many family assets had to be sold in 1982 - to pay a 97% tax bill.

Yep, our generation had it so much better than yours. I am so sorry to hear you have to go to work to maintain a nice lifestyle in your £500k house that you had help to buy. I am also very glad that my dc and their partners want to work and expect to work.

Anyway, must dash - off to work now, aged nearly 66. DH aged nearly 65 left 30 minutes ago.

Katypp · 17/04/2026 08:02

I know houses are more expensive now. I would not deny that. But i think societal and lifestyle changes and expectations are at play now too.
I bought my first house with my now exh when we were 20. At that point, we had both been working for two years and we both lived at home until we were married at 21. We both ran small cars, but once we were engaged, every penny went on saving the deposit for the two-bedroom terraced house. No holidays, no new clothes, no eating out or takeaways, no days out. We both saved half our salary. This route was fairly standard in my group.
You don't really see this now. The more usual route to home ownership seems to be gap year, go to uni, meet someone, move in together, have children, big wedding and then look to buy.
So whereas my generation were on the property ladder when we had relatively few expenses, today's FTBs have often been spending a fortune on rent and have childcare expenses as they try to save. Because they already have children they need bigger homes than we did for our first home. They are entering the housing market ar what used to be a second or even third rung up the ladder.
Lufestyle expectations are also higher, with a general 'I work hard so should be able to afford x, y or z' attidude. The saving for a deposit comes from a smaller pool. On TV recently, i saw a family stuck in Dubai bemoaning they had to spend money they had been saving for a house deposit 'for years' to get back home. They were on holiday in Dubai fgs!
On here recently. I saw a poster say ut was 'a shame' that the op had to live in a three-bed semi with a family. I was brought up in such a house, they were perfectly standard family homes but now they are not good enough apparently.
In conclusion, yes houses are more expensive but creeping ligestyle changes bear a big part of the affordability issue.

TheyGrewUp · 17/04/2026 08:11

@Katypp indeed. I bought my first flat aged 21. The first year I had no CH, two deckchairs instead of armchairs and a paste table for table. The cooker and fridge were given to me by an older lady at work who was having a new kitchen.

DH's sisters shared a bedroom in a three bed semi; MIL shared a bedroom with her two sisters; the two boys had the smaller room. In 1962 (MIL) had left home by then, her parents cut up the dining table leaf, a chair and the door to their bedroom to keep the younger children warm. Bitter winter, issues with coal.

Katypp · 17/04/2026 08:20

TheyGrewUp · 17/04/2026 08:11

@Katypp indeed. I bought my first flat aged 21. The first year I had no CH, two deckchairs instead of armchairs and a paste table for table. The cooker and fridge were given to me by an older lady at work who was having a new kitchen.

DH's sisters shared a bedroom in a three bed semi; MIL shared a bedroom with her two sisters; the two boys had the smaller room. In 1962 (MIL) had left home by then, her parents cut up the dining table leaf, a chair and the door to their bedroom to keep the younger children warm. Bitter winter, issues with coal.

No one is saying we should go back to those times. But an acknowledgement that just maybe older posters had tougb times too would be nice sometimes.
But i expect we will be mocked and that Monty Python sketch referenced, as always.
I suppose they are correct that our generation have never struggled to afford to save for a four-bed house with tasteful furniture while running two big cars and paying for holidays, days out, activities etc.
As i say, they don't want to know

Everanewbie · 17/04/2026 09:27

Katypp · 17/04/2026 08:20

No one is saying we should go back to those times. But an acknowledgement that just maybe older posters had tougb times too would be nice sometimes.
But i expect we will be mocked and that Monty Python sketch referenced, as always.
I suppose they are correct that our generation have never struggled to afford to save for a four-bed house with tasteful furniture while running two big cars and paying for holidays, days out, activities etc.
As i say, they don't want to know

There are hardships that have been faced by many generations. "Things" are much more affordable these days. Phones, TVs, Computers, Foreign Holidays. And yes, people today do seem to want it all. It must be the latest iPhone, the Maldives and a newer car, maybe 2.

But housing is not. My father in law harps on about double digits interest rate, but he forgets that this was very very temporary, and was based on a principle around twice his working class salary with a full time mum at home. Now we face house prices 8-9 times the average salary, on 5%, an interest rate that has been around long enough to now be called long term. I'd much sooner see 10% on a x3 multiplier for 6 months than 5% for 8 years on a 9 x multiplier. They didn't need two cars because they had grandparents helping and only one job to get to. Younger people need two cars to get to their jobs and share childcare.

Everyone has their own stories, many people from all generations have faced tough times, but there seems to be a reluctance for older generations to acknowledge how incredibly successful people starting out now need to be, just to tread water compared to decades past, without of course, turning to state handouts.

Thechaseison71 · 17/04/2026 10:26

Everanewbie · 17/04/2026 09:27

There are hardships that have been faced by many generations. "Things" are much more affordable these days. Phones, TVs, Computers, Foreign Holidays. And yes, people today do seem to want it all. It must be the latest iPhone, the Maldives and a newer car, maybe 2.

But housing is not. My father in law harps on about double digits interest rate, but he forgets that this was very very temporary, and was based on a principle around twice his working class salary with a full time mum at home. Now we face house prices 8-9 times the average salary, on 5%, an interest rate that has been around long enough to now be called long term. I'd much sooner see 10% on a x3 multiplier for 6 months than 5% for 8 years on a 9 x multiplier. They didn't need two cars because they had grandparents helping and only one job to get to. Younger people need two cars to get to their jobs and share childcare.

Everyone has their own stories, many people from all generations have faced tough times, but there seems to be a reluctance for older generations to acknowledge how incredibly successful people starting out now need to be, just to tread water compared to decades past, without of course, turning to state handouts.

My grandparents never helped look after us. They were either working or dead. We didn't have any car. Nor a phone ( landline) Both parents worked full time. This was 70s/80dd

BlackRowan · 17/04/2026 10:30

Differentforgirls · 16/04/2026 18:41

There you go again. Telling women how to express themselves 🤦‍♀️

Guess what I’m a woman too. Being rude is not equivalent to being a feminist

BUUUT subscribing to your logic:. Don’t tell me what I’m allowed to say or not. She can express herself whichever way she wants and criticise other women but as a result I can express myself towards her whichever way I want, and criticise her as much as I want

BlackRowan · 17/04/2026 10:38

ThatFairy · 17/04/2026 07:23

I also don't think it's necessary. If people can't afford childcare maybe they need to look at having a cheaper mortgage you know living within their means. I think people should raise their own children, I know when my sister was doing it she was getting by on her husband's income she just wanted more money. That's fair enough, but my parents shouldn't have had to struggle for it. It really was difficult for them. If I get to be a grandmother I will want to have them stay over at weekends and in holidays but I won't be doing the school run, no way I did that for years and don't plan on going back there

Do you realise how expensive childcare is now?

bog standard nursery in london is costing 2000 a month for full time 5 days. Not a fancy nursery but a standard one. Childminder very slightly cheaper.
just 5 years ago that same nursery was 1300 pcm for same hours.

”free hours” are making a small dent in that cost because of they way they are costed.

do you think anyone could have predicted that?

nevermind the soaring mortgages cost thanks to Liz Truss stupidity

TheyGrewUp · 17/04/2026 10:42

BlackRowan · 17/04/2026 10:38

Do you realise how expensive childcare is now?

bog standard nursery in london is costing 2000 a month for full time 5 days. Not a fancy nursery but a standard one. Childminder very slightly cheaper.
just 5 years ago that same nursery was 1300 pcm for same hours.

”free hours” are making a small dent in that cost because of they way they are costed.

do you think anyone could have predicted that?

nevermind the soaring mortgages cost thanks to Liz Truss stupidity

In 1995 nursery cost me £1200 pcm. So, yes, I think people of my age do understand. Also there were no childcare vouchers available back then. That price btw was for a baby from 4 months to 16 months because mat leave was six months back then and ot was usual to stop working at about 34/5 weeks pg.

Everanewbie · 17/04/2026 10:43

Thechaseison71 · 17/04/2026 10:26

My grandparents never helped look after us. They were either working or dead. We didn't have any car. Nor a phone ( landline) Both parents worked full time. This was 70s/80dd

I have no reason to doubt your past struggles, and at a risk of sounding patronising, which I'm not trying to be, good on you for making a life.

But I am talking about wider structural issues faced by younger people that were very different to those faced by previous generations, not picking apart yours, or anyone else's individual circumstances or experiences. Two full time good jobs are now generally needed to buy a house. 2 cars are usually needed to make it to the two jobs. Childcare is anywhere between £60-£125 per child, per day (yes you do get some help with this, but it drops off if one parent earns more than £100k). So structurally, parents are time poor and financially squeezed, taxed like never before and facing rent/mortgages like never before, and aren't benefiting from wage growth that keeps pace with property inflation, nor final salary inflation proofed retirement provision that the previous generations with equivalent careers enjoyed.

Skipping a Starbucks or an avocado brunch wont change this much.

Thechaseison71 · 17/04/2026 10:46

Everanewbie · 17/04/2026 10:43

I have no reason to doubt your past struggles, and at a risk of sounding patronising, which I'm not trying to be, good on you for making a life.

But I am talking about wider structural issues faced by younger people that were very different to those faced by previous generations, not picking apart yours, or anyone else's individual circumstances or experiences. Two full time good jobs are now generally needed to buy a house. 2 cars are usually needed to make it to the two jobs. Childcare is anywhere between £60-£125 per child, per day (yes you do get some help with this, but it drops off if one parent earns more than £100k). So structurally, parents are time poor and financially squeezed, taxed like never before and facing rent/mortgages like never before, and aren't benefiting from wage growth that keeps pace with property inflation, nor final salary inflation proofed retirement provision that the previous generations with equivalent careers enjoyed.

Skipping a Starbucks or an avocado brunch wont change this much.

What struggles? It was just normal life.

Everanewbie · 17/04/2026 10:49

TheyGrewUp · 17/04/2026 10:42

In 1995 nursery cost me £1200 pcm. So, yes, I think people of my age do understand. Also there were no childcare vouchers available back then. That price btw was for a baby from 4 months to 16 months because mat leave was six months back then and ot was usual to stop working at about 34/5 weeks pg.

So adjusted for inflation, your nursery costs would now be £3,000 per month. That is a lot. Was that for one child?

In 1995, the median house price was 4.4x the median salary. In 2026 it is 8.2 x the median salary. You may have had comparable childcare costs but your house would have cost you half as much. A couple in those conditions would both work to provide luxuries and a better house, not simply to make ends meet.

Everanewbie · 17/04/2026 10:51

Thechaseison71 · 17/04/2026 10:46

What struggles? It was just normal life.

Well well done for doing well in normal conditions with dead or unhelpful grandparents, no landline and no car. Paradise.

TheyGrewUp · 17/04/2026 10:58

For one child and interest rates were 7.25% so the that has to be factored into your multiplier. No working tax credits, etc., available. It isn't as simple as just looking at the house price multiplier.

Katypp · 17/04/2026 11:09

They didn't need two cars because they had grandparents helping and only one job to get to. Younger people need two cars to get to their jobs and share childcare.

How far are you going back?
I am 59 and i and all my contemporaries worked full time throughout. Maternity leave was 12 weeks and then back to full-time as before. No going part time, no school hours working, flexible hours or wfh. No paternity leave.
There were some SAHMs as they are niw, but I didn't know any.

Everanewbie · 17/04/2026 11:10

TheyGrewUp · 17/04/2026 10:58

For one child and interest rates were 7.25% so the that has to be factored into your multiplier. No working tax credits, etc., available. It isn't as simple as just looking at the house price multiplier.

Average earnings in 1995 was £13,500 gross
Average house price £60,000
On a 10% deposit, £50,000 borrowed at 7.25% is £362 pm
That is 32% of monthly gross salary

Average earnings in 2026 £40,000 gross
Average house price in 2026 £300,000
On a 10% deposit, £270,000 borrowed at 5.5% at £1,658pm
That is 50% of monthly gross salary

I haven't got time to drill down on London or the south of England but my suspicion is that the house prices will be much much higher without the corresponding higher salary.