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

Sapphire

cashbackproblems wrote: »

No but the the non-whites who are moving into the area I am discussing are all benefit type of people..what you been there?

He lives in Australia – and has done for a while now, I believe. There have been massive changes in the UK as the result of immigration just over the last couple of years…:(

HornetSaver

Housing too expensive for two ordinary earners, divided by two adults earning ordinary money = unaffordable.

Housing too expensive for two ordinary earners, divided by four or five adults earning ordinary money = likely to be affordable.

This pair of equations remains equally true whether you're both white and British, one or neither of those.

If the implication is that immigrants or people of a certain race will, on average, occupy housing at higher density than white British people, then it goes without saying that the proportion of London households which are either first generation immigrant, ethnic minority, or indeed both, will continue to increase.

It ties into my eloquent - and therefore ignored - question on page two. The question in the title is a red herring - it is already happening. The real questions are "why?" and "should we be concerned about it?".

==================================================

So let me ask a better set of questions from which to start a discussion. "What is the minimum standard of living that someone working full time, earning considerably above minimum wage, and spending the majority of their income on housing should accept? Are there downsides for the area as a whole in people accepting lower standards than this?"

On average, the minimum living condition expectations of those raised in Britain from below the age of about 6 or 7 (regardless of race or nationality) would be substantially higher than those expected by people who have migrated here from poorer countries at an older age. So in turn, are children in this country brought up to expect too much in return for full time work?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

HornetSaver wrote: »

So let me ask a better set of questions from which to start a discussion. "What is the minimum standard of living that someone working full time, earning considerably above minimum wage, and spending the majority of their income on housing should accept? Are there downsides for the area as a whole in people accepting lower standards than this?"

On average, the minimum living condition expectations of those raised in Britain from below the age of about 6 or 7 (regardless of race or nationality) would be substantially higher than those expected by people who have migrated here from poorer countries at an older age. So in turn, are children in this country brought up to expect too much in return for full time work?

Crikey.

That's a lot of effort put into avoiding the real question.

Why not just build a lot more houses?

Problem solved...

Jason74

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Crikey.

That's a lot of effort put into avoiding the real question.

Why not just build a lot more houses?

Problem solved...

True. But given we've consistently and spectacularly failed to do that for at lest the last 40 years or so, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that (ridiculous though it is) we wont be doing that any time soon. Especially as we have a Government that appears ideologically opposed to doing most of the things that have delivered higher housebuilding in the past.

cells

Jason74 wrote: »

True. But given we've consistently and spectacularly failed to do that for at lest the last 40 years or so, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that (ridiculous though it is) we wont be doing that any time soon. Especially as we have a Government that appears ideologically opposed to doing most of the things that have delivered higher housebuilding in the past.

The shortage of homes only really started in the early 2000s so we have failed to build sufficient homes for about 15 years not for 40 years!

I would argue that a small excess was built up from 1970-2000 especially in Inner London where the socialist labour councils went on a council house building boom so much so that Hackney Islington & Tower Hamlets built so many that the council stock grew to almost 60% of the homes in those boroughs. Of course since 60% of the people of those boroughs were not poor what happened is that those boroughs shipped in poor people from around London and turned those once respectable inner London boroughs into Ghettos
With the right to buy and some additional new builds the social homes in those areas has fallen to the ~40% mark and those inner London areas have become a little more desirable as a result

HornetSaver

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Crikey.

That's a lot of effort put into avoiding the real question.

Why not just build a lot more houses?

In London?

CLAPTON

we need to build more houses to meet the needs of our present population

we need to limit immigration to limit the population growth to slow the decline in housing strandard, the decline in transport standards the decline in health care standards the decline in education etc.

hamish thinks that increase in population makes us richer because he thinks the necessary increase in these infrastructures is all free: I think it's his background where he is not used to pay for things as it all paid by Londoners and so counts as 'free'.

lisyloo

HornetSaver wrote: »

In London?

No one has a God given right to live in central London.
If you earn it then fine, otherwise recognise it's not a right.


But yes -why can't there be more supply in commutable places e.g. Medway towns?
I would agree the transport system will be under strain, so we either need better infrastructure or to encourage companies to move back offices outside of London.
I think less centralisation of jobs would be a good thing and there 's no reason these days for back office operations not to be somewhere else but long established companies may need an incentive.
My experience is that shareholders/boards don't care about affordability of housing as long as they can recruit and London is still a great place to recruit the top talent.

Filo25

lisyloo wrote: »

No one has a God given right to live in central London.
If you earn it then fine, otherwise recognise it's not a right.


But yes -why can't there be more supply in commutable places e.g. Medway towns?
I would agree the transport system will be under strain, so we either need better infrastructure or to encourage companies to move back offices outside of London.
I think less centralisation of jobs would be a good thing and there 's no reason these days for back office operations not to be somewhere else but long established companies may need an incentive.
My experience is that shareholders/boards don't care about affordability of housing as long as they can recruit and London is still a great place to recruit the top talent.

Very true, where I work I know that we really struggle to fill some of our IT roles outside of London

HornetSaver

lisyloo wrote: »

No one has a God given right to live in central London.
If you earn it then fine, otherwise recognise it's not a right.

If you stick 10 million jobs within an 10 mile radius, you need a way of housing 10 million workers regardless of what they're worth. :doh: