Do people think native English people will be forced to move to out of London?

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

But don't you keep telling us how London is full and filling up with immigrants. So its thebimmogrant kids paying the way of the older Londoners and the kids of the older Londoners so a win win win

difficult to say what this incoherent nonsense means

but it is clearly an economic truth (even for EU acolytes) that high London houses price present a transfer of wealth from young and poorer to the old and richer.
The fact you love the EU doesn't make that less true.

As I try to deal with actual economic truths rather than your semi religious 'EU truth', then obviously I acknowledge that 'young and poorer' includes immigrants.
Only bigoted idiots like you, Generali and Mayo would even consider otherwise.

Obviously you trio of idiots think that this transfer is a win, win: I do not and see it as a massive negative.
Much better that people in London, both young and old, foreign and native born, LGBT, all religions and creeds, all races and ethnic groups, can live in reasonable sized accommodation.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

difficult to say what this incoherent nonsense means

but it is clearly an economic truth (even for EU acolytes) that high London houses price present a transfer of wealth from young and poorer to the old and richer.
The fact you love the EU doesn't make that less true.

As I try to deal with actual economic truths rather than your semi religious 'EU truth', then obviously I acknowledge that 'young and poorer' includes immigrants.
Only bigoted idiots like you, Generali and Mayo would even consider otherwise.

Obviously you trio of idiots think that this transfer is a win, win: I do not and see it as a massive negative.
Much better that people in London, both young and old, foreign and native born, LGBT, all religions and creeds, all races and ethnic groups, can live in reasonable sized accommodation.

I think about 90% of my pro European stance is just because it annoys you so


but since we are playing stupid tonight.

live in reasonable sized accommodation

Homes do not shrink or grow in size depending on the migration levels

Obviously you trio of idiots think that this transfer is a win, win: I do not and see it as a massive negative.

It is a win for the migrants as they want to move there
It is a win for the people the migrants displace because they willingly agreed to be displaced for a bag of cash
It is a win for the children of the displaced as they get some/most of the bag of cash

It is of course !!!! for those who were/are poor as property moves further and further away from reach. However these people by in large could not reach even in 1990s prices as guess what? they were poor renters then too

There is also a win in that the taxes paid by all this wealth means higher services and lower taxes elsewhere

high London houses price present a transfer of wealth from young and poorer to the old and richer.

House prices do not move one way or the other to spite you. Local prices go up if the local economy is growing/improving. If you want London house prices to return to the silly lows of the 1990s then you need the economy to move to the silly lows of the 1990s.


Also you hobby crocodile tears of them darn migrants be pushing up hoose prices leads the the logical conclusion that Mr Clapton should be pro migration into the North, The midlands, and the Stoke on Trent cos them there homes are cheap as brciks.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

I think about 90% of my pro European stance is just because it annoys you so


but since we are playing stupid tonight.

I agree : you are being stupid

Homes do not shrink or grow in size depending on the migration levels




It is a win for the migrants as they want to move there
It is a win for the people the migrants displace because they willingly agreed to be displaced for a bag of cash
It is a win for the children of the displaced as they get some/most of the bag of cash

It is of course !!!! for those who were/are poor as property moves further and further away from reach. However these people by in large could not reach even in 1990s prices as guess what? they were poor renters then too

There is also a win in that the taxes paid by all this wealth means higher services and lower taxes elsewhere



House prices do not move one way or the other to spite you. Local prices go up if the local economy is growing/improving. If you want London house prices to return to the silly lows of the 1990s then you need the economy to move to the silly lows of the 1990s.


Also you hobby crocodile tears of them darn migrants be pushing up hoose prices leads the the logical conclusion that Mr Clapton should be pro migration into the North, The midlands, and the Stoke on Trent cos them there homes are cheap as brciks.

ElsieMonkey

CLAPTON wrote: »

It may be right for you to move out in your particular circumstances but London is a wonderful place.
Many areas are, in my opinion being massively improved: I was recent walking round areas that used to be dreadful but have been or are being transformed : Kings X , and the area along Caledonian Road, Lower Holloway, even Wood Green (ok maybe exaggerating).
Best of luck with your move but remember the best experiences of London.

I agree with everything you've said, but what average worker in London can afford to live in Kings X etc??! That's the issue...

duchy

dktreesea wrote: »

Depends what you mean by native. They will never be native the way white Britons whose ancestors trace back on this land, for hundreds, maybe even thousands of years, are native, unless they have the blood of a native Briton somewhere on their line. White Britons in that category are similar to Aborigines in Australia or Native Americans in the States.


Foreigners who have moved here, even several generations ago, and regardless of race, are still immigrants the same way white people are immigrants in places like New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the UK. Just because someone is American, born in the States, maybe even 15th generation, doesn't make them native people, if no one on their ancestral line has had a native American partner.


.

What utter rubbish.
I'm British born and bred - (actually born in Kensington) . I'm as much British as someone whose great, great, great grandparents were born here. YOU may not recognise me as British (although you'd have no way of telling I wasn't British unless I told you) but most normal people do and the law certainly does.

Actually I'm as British as the heir to the throne as one of my parents was born here and the other was a national of a European country (although one that formerly "belonged" to Britain). Presumably you regard the Queen as an immigrant too and not really British as her heritage is German. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

duchy

Sapphire wrote: »

I agree with most of this. In the past (Victorian times, etc.), where the affluent lived was built accommodation for poor people as well, who worked for the affluent. They were cheek by jowl, which (I think) is a good idea, given that they depended on each other. I also think that all this throwing up of ugly 'luxury apartments' in London for companies and people to use as investments rather than as housing, then leaving them empty, is a really bad idea – they should be used to alleviate the housing shortage. London property should be lived in, not used as a store of (often dodgy) cash by wealthy individuals and companies.

.

Any government could deal with that in short order by taxing such investments to the point it's no longer attractive to overseas or corporate investors - They simply don't want to as they prize the financial markets above housing in importance.

StevieJ

When did the London gentrification start? I was watching an old Steptoe&son from late 60's, the photographer who was using their house for a backdrop for a shoot, stated that they had knocked down the place in the east end where he was born and replaced it with a posh marina

zagubov

ElsieMonkey wrote: »

I was born in and have always lived in London. Born in Hammersmith and have lived all over London - Acton, Ealing, Harrow, Southwark. But I am selling up and leaving London. It took me a long time to get my head around this since being a Londoner feels like a massive part of my identity. For ages I refused to be one of those statistics, one of those left little choice but to be priced out of their home town.

I don't believe anyone has the right to live anywhere in particular - if you can't afford it you have to move. So, it does annoy me when I hear of council Right to Buy schemes in areas of London where me and my partner, both as full time average/above average workers have no chance in hell of ever being able to afford to live in even if we wanted to. Why should those in council properties have the "right to buy"? I thought the point on council properties was to help those in need have a roof over their heads? If they can afford to buy then they shouldn't be in a council house! Being given the chance to buy in prime location at a reduced price and pocket the difference when selling on in future is just down right unfair when others work, scrimp and save to have a property anywhere in London - their home town.

So anyway, we're fed up, priced out (unless we want to be mortgaged up to our eyeballs and have 0 quality of life/no space) and are cashing in and moving away. We feel very lucky to have been born here, have got on the property ladder when we did, and benefit from the rising prices in order to fund our move away. However, we have not been born in to money, have been forever scrimping and saving and have made calculated strategic decisions about what we bought when and where property wise which has got us to this point.

I'm 34 and London is a vastly different place than it was just 10 years ago. I know cities are always evolving but London isn't evolving for the better as far as I'm concerned. The suburbs, like where I live now in the Harrow borough, is full of people who just use it as a base to commute to the city, like most of London suburbia. You get as close to the city as your money will allow. Living in no man's land. Always on the outside looking in. The area and circumstance picked you, you didn't pick it, and as a result no one gives a s**t about who and what is on their doorstep. There's no sense of community.

Unless you rely on the council to fund your existence, are rich, or are happy to live a million to one bedroom, there really is no longevity yo your existence in London. We want to start a family, and have to move away from our home town to do so, in order to afford it.

I empathise. There's an article in the ft, not sure I'm allowed to link to it. Just google psychic cost of leaving London Simon Kuper.

Sums up tons of what a lot of people here are worried about. The way London attracts 20-30 somethings to make a bit of dosh, but sees them having to do a runner in their 30s and 40s as they'll be living in shoeboxes with their kids. A lot of the moans in it apply to many big cities but not on the scale it applies to London.

zagubov

StevieJ wrote: »

When did the London gentrification start? I was watching an old Steptoe&son from late 60's, the photographer who was using their house for a backdrop for a shoot, stated that they had knocked down the place in the east end where he was born and replaced it with a posh marina

I used to work not far from where Steptoe was set (and filmed). Not amazingly gentrified even now I need to say. Although the junk yards gone!

cells

zagubov wrote: »

I empathise. There's an article in the ft, not sure I'm allowed to link to it. Just google psychic cost of leaving London Simon Kuper.

Sums up tons of what a lot of people here are worried about. The way London attracts 20-30 somethings to make a bit of dosh, but sees them having to do a runner in their 30s and 40s as they'll be living in shoeboxes with their kids. A lot of the moans in it apply to many big cities but not on the scale it applies to London.

London has to be relatively expensive as that is what encourage some existing Londoners to move out and stops others from rUK moving in.

A cheap London would see far fewer moving out and far more moving in so instead of growing at 100,000 a year it would need to grow at multiples of that

The biggest problem with discussions about London and especially inner London is that people do not realise how artificially cheap and depressed inner London was in the mid 1990s and base their wishes on those days as some norm rather than accepting those where the abnormal lows