London Has Peaked

Jason74

lisyloo wrote: »

That was in the context of kick starting a recovery and I think Paddington was correct.
Back in 2008 we were in a really bad place, some of the measures like QE and bailing out the banks had to be taken.
Yes there are consequences, but it was the least worst solution.

The current situation is not good, but the props are being removed e.g. landlords tax breaks in the budget.
I am certain the housing market will re-adjust. I'm not a perma bear but it's absolutely obvious that todays graduates cannot afford todays prices. Eventually the boomers will die - of that we can be certain.
What we have now is unsustainable.

I disagree considering where we were in 2008.
I think they've done a jolly good job overall to get us to where we are today.
Yes there are issues, but they've managed to get us out of the banking crisis.
It dead easy to say you could have done it better with hindsight.
To which I'd say - why didn't you? Where were you?
Being an archair warrior? or did you actually contribute anything?

In terms of 2008, I would agree with you. Yes, it's easy to look back and say what might have been done differently, but the scale of the crisis at the time meant that collapse had to be averted and it was very much a case of worry about the problems later.

But when I say that "policymakers have a lot to answer for", that's not what I'm talking about. I'm thinking primarily in terms of funding for lending (for Mortgages, it was an entirely appropriate policy in respect of business lending), and HTB2 (HTB1 made sense as it stimulated new build activities). These wern't actions taken in the heat of a crisis, they were calculated actions taken years after the worst of the initial storm was long gone.

It's no coincidence that London House prices have gone absolutely mad since these measures were introduced (people will point out that HTB2 use in London is low, but that misses the point as to the impact that the government explicitly underpinning the market hass had), and indeed, house prices generally across the country have picked up a lot since those measures were implemented. These measures can't be justified interms of crisis management, and were about propping up the housing market for its own sake. We're now seeing the social consequences of this.

And in terms of your "where were you?" comment, I think that's at best uncalled for (and surprising coming from you as a poster who, like Paddington, I have always tended to respect evenwhen I disagree with you). In one sense, the power of you, me, or most of us to impact these kind of policies is more or less nil, purely based on not being in government or the bank of england. I used my limited "power" at the ballot box to vote against the party that introduced those policies and that advocated more of the same, but on that big picture level, my power is limited.

What I have been able to do, and have done so with all my energy, is choose to work in a field that supports those negatively impacted by the current economic heirachy. Having trained as an IFA, I came out of that sector in 2004 due to my frustrations with how the industry works ( I went into it with the naive vew that the industry really was there to help people, and left when the frustrations of the reality became too much)to pursue less lucrative but much more socially valuable roles using my skills to help people at the bottom of the ladder improve their position.

In that time I've been involved in setting up two social enterprises,and have managed a third one. At last count those organisations hel over 10,000 people a year between them to manage their finances better and avoid payday loans and other exploitative Credit.

I've also delivered a number of programmes around improving financial knowledge among low income consumers, some of which have had national significance in the sector. And I provide advice at ground level that this week alone has removed the risk of homelessness from two people.

So, while no, I don't have the power to change economic policy, I think I can reasonably claim to be "making a contribution" in terms of helping people impacted by the economic position. So the insinuation that I'm some kind of keyboard warrior is most unfair imho. you can still legitimately think I'm completely wrong of course, but that kind of borderline personal attack was in my opinion uncalled for.

lisyloo

I think that's at best uncalled for

I don't.
It reminds me of an obeise person on the sofa criticising premier league football players.

Did you even try to get into government? or get into a position of influence?

Jason74

lisyloo wrote: »

I don't.
It reminds me of an obeise person on the sofa criticising premier league football players.

Did you even try to get into government? or get into a position of influence?

There are plenty of ways you can try and bring about change other than through Government / political influence. I originally wanted to go down that route (it's actually what my degree is in) but quickly realised that for all the skills I possess, one thing I'm not is a leader.

After a few years in financial services (and in that time, I could have been legitimately criticised for not doing a lot to help others), I found a niche where I really can make a difference to people's lives and finances. I'm proud of what I've acheived in that capacity, and have enough gratitude from those I've helped to know that pride isn't misplaced. I've done far more good that way than I would of through any kind of party political channel.

You may of course take whatever view you see fit regarding that. I in turn can draw whatever inferences about you that I choose from you taking such a view, albeit its a shame that I might have to. As I say, you were someone I always respected. Not that you should be too concerned with what i think of you of course, and vice versa.

padington

The only exodus that is happening is TONS of people moving from small towns into London.

This is the new digital paradigm. London will grow in its attraction. Lands end will continue to rot.

remorseless

padington wrote: »

London will grow in its attraction. Lands end will continue to rot.

But can London cope with the influx? And does London have a long term plan?
Once it cracks it can be a domino effect!

padington

remorseless wrote: »

But can London cope with the influx? And does London have a long term plan?
Once it cracks it can be a domino effect!

Cities live thousands of years and they can survive most things including nuclear attacks. London can handle a million or two more grafter's. We just have to make sure that everyone is grafting and more importantly make sure we attract enough people who can manage them well.

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

London is the coolest city in the world so forget that idea.

it might well be but if you are not paid well and flat sharing with 2-5 other strangers you are barely living let alone somehow enjoying these supposed special things london has to offer

Having lived in over half a dozen towns and cities in the UK, including central, inner and outter london I can confidently say the majority of London is worse than the places I've lived that were outside of London

padington

remorseless wrote: »

But can London cope with the influx? And does London have a long term plan?
Once it cracks it can be a domino effect!

When it stops being the most attractive place on earth, people will want to come less and might start leaving.

cells

padington wrote: »

When it stops being the most attractive place on earth, people will want to come less and might start leaving.

what was different about London during 1961 to 1991 when the population fell by 1 million people? why was it not attractive then and what changed?

From what I understand and have seen, London is not that special at all. The population growth since 1991 was due to a few things. One of the big ones is that in 1991 the population density (people per house) was a good deal lower than the national average so there was a lot of room for population growth. The second was simple immigration. Immigrants go to where existing immigrant settlements are and thats London.

So Londons population growth has little to do with some deemed success or not, or it being the best place to live (BS) or not.

going forward now that London has used up its 'spare' occupancy ratio the future is more rapidly rising rents. This will mean two things, one that London does not grow in population as fast in the next 10 years as it did in the past 10 years and the other is that London people per house figure grows its differential vs the rest of the country.

padington

cells wrote: »

what was different about London during 1961 to 1991 when the population fell by 1 million people? why was it not attractive then and what changed?

From what I understand and have seen, London is not that special at all. The population growth since 1991 was due to a few things. One of the big ones is that in 1991 the population density (people per house) was a good deal lower than the national average so there was a lot of room for population growth. The second was simple immigration. Immigrants go to where existing immigrant settlements are and thats London.

So Londons population growth has little to do with some deemed success or not, or it being the best place to live (BS) or not.

going forward now that London has used up its 'spare' occupancy ratio the future is more rapidly rising rents. This will mean two things, one that London does not grow in population as fast in the next 10 years as it did in the past 10 years and the other is that London people per house figure grows its differential vs the rest of the country.

London was a !!!!!! hole in the early eighties from my memory. Wood Green where I live now was just full of rubbish. You just had to wade through it. In Muswell hill where I was brought up we used to have gangs of skin heads sniffing glue at the top of my road. The local pubs would were edgy. It's was common for a fist to be put through the space invaders in the Minstral boy and fights were allowed to be fought till blood was everywhere as long as they were taken 'outside'. Archway used to have a large Scrolling neon sign advertising how many millions were out of work. Mentally ill people all over Archway were endlessly scouring the road to pick up fag butts from the floor. Oxford street was horrible place. Trafalgar square was just full of pigeon !!!!!!. Finsbury Park was dangerous and full of needles. When businesses shut down, they stayed shut down. There were derelict corners of London all over the place.

London wasn't an attractive place to be then, hence why it didn't attract many people. Even Londoners dreamt of the 'good life' and escaping to the country. Now old people dream of getting a nice safe apartment in Covent Garden in walking distance of all the amazing world leading cultural offerings.

Things certainly have changed from my experience.