London

padington

CLAPTON wrote: »

Given the situation today, are you in favour of unrestricted movement of people?
If you are not, then what is your criteria for limited movement?

Immigrants have made Britain what it is today. Our current economic boom is dependent on them. London is the capital of the world and such a successful turbine of wealth because of the them.

I am happy to have very limited restrictions on immigration. More hands make light work. The countries that attract more workers whilst attracting more work will prosper and we are doing this at the moment rather quite well.

The director general of the CBI agree's ....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/11187887/EU-migration-is-essential-for-a-healthy-economy-says-CBIs-John-Cridland.html

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

Immigrants have made Britain what it is today. Our current economic boom is dependent on them. London is the capital of the world and such a successful turbine of wealth because of the them.

I am happy to have very limited restrictions on immigration. More hands make light work. The countries that attract more workers whilst attracting more work will prosper and we are doing this at the moment rather quite well.

The director general of the CBI agree's ....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/11187887/EU-migration-is-essential-for-a-healthy-economy-says-CBIs-John-Cridland.html

Even though we receive 600,000 per year, we have quite strong restrictions on immigration from non EU countries.

if we allowed unrestrictive immigration there would be at least 2 million coming for middle east, a similar number for Africa and vast numbers from Afgan, India and Pakistan. That's just this year.

Obviously the CBI want unlimited source of cheap labour.

Although your link doesn't work for me, do they discuss the quality of life or even the per capita gdp?

If you consider quality of life rather than CBI profits and cheap labour costs, then all the evidence is that a higher population makes us poorer.
How does the inability of young Londoners and people in the SE, to live in a modest family home make them richer?

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

How does the inability of young Londoners and people in the SE, to live in a modest family home make them richer?

it means when their parents or grandparents clock out they get a £530k inheritance (average London house price) rather than a 265k inheritance (guess without immigrants).

With that £530k they can go to pretty much any other region of the UK and buy 2-3-4-10 homes outright thanks to the.....immigrants.....

mwpt

cells wrote: »

it means when their parents or grandparents clock out they get a £530k inheritance (average London house price) rather than a 265k inheritance (guess without immigrants).

With that £530k they can go to pretty much any other region of the UK and buy 2-3-4-10 homes outright thanks to the.....immigrants.....

I have no inheritance coming. What am I to do? Can I adopt a London granny?

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

it means when their parents or grandparents clock out they get a £530k inheritance (average London house price) rather than a 265k inheritance (guess without immigrants).

With that £530k they can go to pretty much any other region of the UK and buy 2-3-4-10 homes outright thanks to the.....immigrants.....

The inability to raise a family in a family sized home whilst one is young enough to have children and enjoy raising them, is not compensated by receiving a large inheritance in your sixties.

Poor housing standards do NOT make people better off irrespective of the price of the property.
The 'young' of London/SE have a reduced standard of living, compared to 20-30 years ago.
Immigration has made them poorer.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

The inability to raise a family in a family sized home whilst one is young enough to have children and enjoy raising them, is not compensated by receiving a large inheritance in your sixties.

I used to think that, eg high house prices delaying marriages and kids etc but the evidence does not support it. Specifically there are later marriages and fewer kids in the cheap parts of the country as well as the expensive parts. Also places like germany have very affordable nice big homes but chidren per woman is even worse. So it seems to be a structural shift in the habits/norms of men and woman rather than anything to do with house prices.

CLAPTON wrote: »

Poor housing standards do NOT make people better off irrespective of the price of the property.

ok so you just said price is irrelevant?

CLAPTON wrote: »

The 'young' of London/SE have a reduced standard of living, compared to 20-30 years ago.
Immigration has made them poorer.

well I have lived in London for more than 30 years and I can say the young the middle aged and the old are better off. In inner London the proportion of renters has been about 80% for the last 20 years so I am not sure affordability is any better or worse when the portion of owns is about the same

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

I used to think that, eg high house prices delaying marriages and kids etc but the evidence does not support it. Specifically there are later marriages and fewer kids in the cheap parts of the country as well as the expensive parts. Also places like germany have very affordable nice big homes but chidren per woman is even worse. So it seems to be a structural shift in the habits/norms of men and woman rather than anything to do with house prices.



ok so you just said price is irrelevant?



well I have lived in London for more than 30 years and I can say the young the middle aged and the old are better off. In inner London the proportion of renters has been about 80% for the last 20 years so I am not sure affordability is any better or worse when the portion of owns is about the same

the people of london are definitely better off in terms of coffee bars and the amasing variety of restaurants

however in terms of family sized housing per head they are worse off than 20-30 years
depends upon your values I guess

the population of london is growing by abour 100,000 per year
the housing is growing round 25-30k per annum : few of those are family sized properties

the future is worse standards of housing for the foreseeable future unless immigration is severely curtailed

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

the people of london are definitely better off in terms of coffee bars and the amasing variety of restaurants

however in terms of family sized housing per head they are worse off than 20-30 years
depends upon your values I guess

the population of london is growing by abour 100,000 per year
the housing is growing round 25-30k per annum : few of those are family sized properties

the future is worse standards of housing for the foreseeable future unless immigration is severely curtailed

London is currently roughly on par with the rUK in terms of people per house so not materially worse off. However over the next 20 years that looks like it will change. However that is expected and is normal as London (especially inner London) is becoming a city of jobs and workers so its density should be higher. The rUK can be home to the pensioners or families

but your point was that Londers are worse off due to the immigrants. How so when these immigrants are willing to part with £530k cold hard $$$ and rising to buy their biggest most important investment. its blaming immigrants for pushing up the price of apple share if you owned £530k of apple shares you bought for £200k not all that long ago.


anyway. if housing is such a concern there is a quick effective answer for London and that is to sell down the social stock from circa ~850,000 units down towards 300,000 units over a period of 25 years. That would put a lid on HPI and it will reallocate workers to London and push non workers out

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

the future is worse standards of housing for the foreseeable future unless immigration is severely curtailed

you are making silly arguments to try and link it to your pet love of hating of immigration.

The standard of London housing stock has gone up over the last 20 years and will continue to do so and its exactly because prices are going up. That is for both social and private homes.

You are arguing that the quantity is going down which is currently true. London will probably go from 2.4 persons per home to 2.6 persons per home over the next 20 years. However at the same time there will be more floorspace created through loft conversions and extensions and likely a reallocation of people so that fewer single person households are in london all of which will likely mean the median floorspace available in London probably wont be much worse off in 20 years time.

mayonnaise

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

London has survived invasions, civil war, religious violence, plague, fire, the Blitz etc so I'm fairly confident it can cope with leaving the EU.

Of course London will cope. The UK (minus Scotland) will cope also. We will be impoverished and isolated, but we'll cope.