I think the 1st time buyer piece is politics; there are a number of factors that are never discussed in the media or government;
1) Millennials live in a era of plenty, they've been bought up with little turbulence or troubles in their lives where the norms of technology, eating out and enjoying life is standard.
They also think this is what they should do/have, i see them in Costa spending £6-7 of coffee and cakes, or in Pizza Express, with hundreds of £ of technology and a £50 mobile bill. Consequently they save little if any.
I would have never of spend such money on casual items, eating out started in my 30s after my second house and 1 rented.
2) From Apprentice (4 yrs) too Today, I've always worked 50-80 hrs a week, where in my travels, Millennial struggle to do a 40 hr week. Most don't like hard work and would never do more than is required. Hence, not earning extra income and adding to saving / investments.
3) We never stole their chance of the right to buy, all the property i brought had no 1st time buyer interest at all. In an era of having NO responsibility and NO accountability, there is always someone to blame, Landlords, Government, anyone really......but not them selves!!

Reply to the comment left by "Mike D" at "20/06/2017 - 15:13":

It's summed up in that song which goes "I wan' it all, I wan' it all, I wan' it now". My generation's school leaving age was 15 (was 14 until I was 11) and when millennials say it's not fair that I could buy a house at 25 and they can't I point out that *I* couldn't; only a married couple could do that after working (and paying tax) and saving regularly with a building society for 9 or ten years (six-and-a-half day week) and living with parents and then the mortgage cost over half our joint earnings. They, on the other hand, at that age are just looking for their first job perhaps after a gap year travelling the world, followed by three years university, followed by a Masters. Then of course, as you say, they want to live in a hotel-room standard rental, in overcrowded London or close to the bright lights of some other city's bars, coffee shops and eateries, at a rent which lets them continue their carefree student lifestyle. I think it's great they have a much easier and fuller life than mine but at least I grew up knowing I had to cut my coat according to my cloth, "make do and mend" and consequently really appreciated everything I saved up for and had responsibility for.

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "20/06/2017 - 14:42":

AL: page 4, for instance.
The methodology of the LSE article is so deeply flawed, however, that I would doubt pretty much everything they conculde. Not to include tenants as stakeholders is, frankly, ludicrous.

From the Queen's Speech live on BBC:
"Most of the Queen's Speech is still under wraps, but we know there'll be a bill to ban landlords from charging "letting fees" which currently average £223 in the private sector.
The Lib Dems feel they deserve some credit for this, saying the move follows "pressure" exerted by them.
Lib Dem peer Olly Grender says: “I am absolutely delighted that the ban on letting fees set out in my Private Members’ Bill is now being proposed as law.
“We know from the tragedy of Grenfell Tower that tenants’ rights have been ignored for far too long.
“It’s time we made them a much greater priority, including by introducing a public register of rogue landlords.”"

IMHO it is just so horrible to mix in the tragedy of Grenfeel Tower Inferno with letting Agents fees.
The country I have been living in for so long, really starts disgusting me.

Reply to the comment left by "Whiteskifreak Surrey" at "21/06/2017 - 10:36":

Agreed - so cynical in exploiting a tragedy which if anything should be used to expose how social housing is far from the holy grail of rental that the ill informed and lefties keep pushing. I wonder if the lib dems will be so keen to attach themselves to this unnecessary tampering in the free market when in a few years time banning fees will be one of many attacks on us that contribute to dwindling rental supply and rising rents. Public register of rogue landords - really ! The local authorities know very well who are the bad apples, they also have the tools to deal with them. The fact that they do not use them is another matter entirely.

Reply to the comment left by "Luk Udav" at "20/06/2017 - 12:38":

Your attempt to denigrate a report written for the Greater London Authority by a Professor of Housing, a Research Fellow who specialises in Housing and two others, all from the London School of Economics, is puerile.

Having claimed that the report “is based on talking to …. estate agents and developers who specialise in selling to overseas clients.” it was a mistake to provide a link to it where we can see that estate agents only formed a small part of the source, and that they talked to developers producing well over half of the development taking place in London.

Their approach is described on digital page 5. “This report brings together evidence from three main sources:

A literature review which looked at academic and other research, ephemeral and grey literature, market commentaries and web-based materials;

Quantitative data, mainly from three sources:
major international estate agencies that market London homes overseas
Molior, a commercial organisation that tracks new residential development in London
Real Capital Analytics, an international firm that logs major investments in the property market, including existing buildings and development sites in London

Interview and survey material:
more than 30 semi-structured interviews with informed stakeholders involved at all stages of the development, finance, marketing and management processes. Some of the responses have included quantitative elements.
Written survey of members of the London group of the House Builders Federation.

On digital page 10 their approach is further described: “Our own research involved interviews with developers and other stakeholders, together with a small survey and quantitative analysis of data from agents whose business is relatively concentrated in areas where overseas sales are likely to be highest. These approaches taken together can give clear indications of the relative importance of sales to overseas buyers and their price point and spatial patterns but not absolute numbers.

Our interviews involved discussion with developers producing well over half of the development taking place in London. They developed across the whole of London but with some concentration in central and inner London.”

https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngovmb/documents/s58640/08b2b%20LSE%20Overseas%20Investment%20report.pdf

Reply to the comment left by "Luk Udav" at "20/06/2017 - 12:38":

You omitted to mention what was being done to help FTBs. At the top of digital page 4:
“Domestic pre-sales were also important to developers but occurred somewhat later in the development process. Developers usually aimed to have little or no unsold stock by the time schemes were complete, as this tied up capital and slowed production. This was seen to disadvantage first-time buyers; in response some developers held some units back for them, while others said they would sell to UK buyers who could show that in principle they could get a mortgage.”
https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngovmb/documents/s58640/08b2b%20LSE%20Overseas%20Investment%20report.pdf

The report makes abundantly clear that without off-plan sales, large developments for the private sector would not happen. FTBs can buy off-plan if they wish, but choose not to because of mortgage difficulties and the preference to wait to see what they are buying.

These developments have massively increased the supply of dwellings nationwide. Without them, house prices would be higher than they are, and FTBs would be even worse off.. It is perverse of you to suggest that FTBs are suffering because they choose not to buy off-plan.

Reply to the comment left by "Luk Udav" at "21/06/2017 - 09:47":

Your claim that tenants were not included in a report into the role of overseas investors in the London new-build residential market is a red herring.

You claim that the report is deeply flawed without giving any reason

You were obviously a very clever person when you got an Oxford Scholarship in 1965 but your comments have recently become the sort of nonsense that we get from HPC trolls.

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "21/06/2017 - 13:51":

Absolutely AL
I agree with everything you have said.

More investment could be available for Northern Ireland and that could mean development grants could become available in some areas.