The SE is a very big area, much of it is very nice and other parts are not so nice. Its just like any other region really.

When we first arrived and looked at renting we could get something really nice for £500 a month. Unfortunately some only look at the SE to gauge affordability.

In the future, when interest rates rise, you may be right. At the moment that is not wholly true, as mortgage rates are around the official level of inflation, and well below the real rate. And sixty or seventy percent of the UK are homeowners ( or their bank is )
Rents are insane, but even in London at 500 p.m. for a room (which generally includes bills) that is only 15 percent of average London Income -36K.
Even assuming that renters are at the lower end of the income scale - say 25K in London - that is still only 25 percent.
Outside London and the South East- I don't know, but would assume that as house prices are lower, so are rents. A 2/3 bedroom house in Tonbridge Kent (easy commute) rents for 750/800 a month.
So more expensive than it has been for a number of years, but probably not far off the log- run average.

Davros - your definition of the South East is a bit behind the times. You are referring to part of what is known as the Greater London Metropolitan (or Urban) Area. Broadly the commuter belt plus other areas strongly economically interlinked with London.

South East is a geographical term - or what would you call the Kent Coast and East Sussex? South South East is a bit cumbersome and Hertfordshire and Essex would be a bit difficult to find. And as for Surrey....

http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...housing-market

Some stats courtesy of the Guardian. The comments after the article are worth a read too. Staggering neglect in the number of council houses built since the 70's.

With wage depression and rising house prices and rents it surely is going to make a dent in people's disposable income. Even a small rise in interest rates would have serious consequences for many.

New, affordable housing is a necessity, but it needs to be on such a grand scale that it's sure to raise howls of protest from the NIMBY's.

I think that's a bit of an over-reaction. Its just a phrase I use to describe what you call the Greater London Metropolitan area and commuter belt. Sure, my phrase is probably not the best choice, but that is all it is. That is the area of the country I despise. I am sure Guildford was a nice place to live once upon a time, but its been ruined by cars and too many people.

For some reason, I class East Sussex and places like Lewes as the South Coast, as opposed to the SE, but I guess I see the SE as (greater london metropolitan area and commuter belt) as a materialistic, money-driven rat-hole.

Davros I was simply repeating the definition used by the GLA and SEEDA. I have no idea why you think that is an over-reaction.

However, as that small area produces between 35 and 40 percent of UK GDP, perhaps we are all fortunate that the benighted inhabitants of that "materialistic money driven rat hole" are prepared to live in such a terrible place. And pay an equivalent amount of tax.

Just thought it was worth saying that the answer is still NO

Keep saying it! You'll believe it soon!

I though we'd established that it was a definite maybe not. Or very satisfactory. One of the two ...

Nah, a definite no. Well actually very satisfactory is acceptable

It's a subjective no and you bloody well know it

No its not and no I dont

I don't think it's really that bad myself. However, just like everywhere else in the known universe, it doesn't amount to more than being 'OK, provided you have enough money to pay the bills, et cetera."

Nowhere is really that great. Same shit, different accent

It's flipping fantastic in my eyes