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

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

People make the choice all the time to move to, from or ignore London. 55 million people in the UK don't live there. An order of magnitude more in the rest of the EU don't live there.

For those that do live in or near London for work, my guess is over 80% of them could reasonably get another job elsewhere for adjusted pay but choose not to.

50% came from overseas so I guess there are plenty of jobs where they came from

cells

Conrad wrote: »

It's a wonder this country gave birth to the industrial revolution, was the original high seas trading nations, invented industry after industry, gave the world so many invention, and became highly ordered and civilised without the last 30 years wave of plucky immigrants. How did we cope! All those pluky Brits that built order wherever they landed.


And prior to this we had incredibly low DNA drift and were basically a nation of people from N West Europe only, yes, yes, with the odd minuscule wave of Huguenot's or Jews.


Most obesity takeaways and fast food joints are indeed started by migrants, but I'm not sure the benefits outweigh the obesity


Also if migrants are so incredible, how is they wanted to 'escape' the chaotic places most came from? You would think their societies were incredible, the way people go on.


The English set -up the likes of HK and Singapore, and opened up so much world trade and colonised nations that immigrants now want to settle in. We over-threw India with a couple of thousand troops.


Also if you look at Russian Oligarchs for example it's largely theft and crooked money, modern day !!!!! that built their wealth, not much to admire and another reason their own nations are not fully prospering and ordered

This is mostly propaganda and mistakes passed on from silly schooling

The UK was not much of anything, just the world was a lot smaller so we were able to conquer parts of the world with a few ships and a few soldiers

The reality back home in Britain was however very grim. Even 100 years ago (so long after the supposed great wealth of the industrial revolution and well into the colonies) some school children here were so poor that they went to school without shoes. That is 3rd world africa poverty in the high seas industrial revolution that gave birth to indian conquers nation. Its only really post WW2 that things truly improved for the masses in the uk and the primary reason for that was the 'true industrial revolution' which came about with electricity. Eletricity existed pre WW2 but not on a scale and scope that allowed the true manufacturing boom of electricity+motors


The rest of the uncivilised easily conquered world once they get a good reliable affordable grid seem to follow a similar boom. China entered the electricity age around 1990 (UK was around 1950) and it boomed thereafter as china has/is booming now. India only really in 2010s and will boom going forward for 30 years.

lisyloo

mwpt wrote: »

People make the choice all the time to move to, from or ignore London. 55 million people in the UK don't live there. An order of magnitude more in the rest of the EU don't live there.

For those that do live in or near London for work, my guess is over 80% of them could reasonably get another job elsewhere for adjusted pay but choose not to.

I'm not sure 55 million make an active choice I.e. Many stay near their home without questioning it.

Out of interest why do you think the 80% don't bother.
I think it proves things aren't that bad yet, because if it wa causing people real pain (in their pocket or thir commute or whatever) then they would move.
Your statement says that most are happy enough to stay where they are doesn't it?
I understand it's some upheaval to move home, schools, jobs etc. But if people are generally happy to stay put then it still says we haven't reached a pain threshold doesn't it?

Personally we would move if a good opportunity came up at the end of a contract but I don't think we'd make great efforts if it was looking likely to be renewed.
I.e. Like most people we accept the downsides for the upsides and it's not reached a pain threshold yet.

mwpt

lisyloo wrote: »

I'm not sure 55 million make an active choice I.e. Many stay near their home without questioning it.

Out of interest why do you think the 80% don't bother.
I think it proves things aren't that bad yet, because if it wa causing people real pain (in their pocket or thir commute or whatever) then they would move.
Your statement says that most are happy enough to stay where they are doesn't it?
I understand it's some upheaval to move home, schools, jobs etc. But if people are generally happy to stay put then it still says we haven't reached a pain threshold doesn't it?

Yes agreed, people still move to London despite high housing cost and crowding. I have the potential to move elsewhere in the world for no pay cut, or even potential pay rise yet I choose London because I enjoy it.

I would enjoy it more if we built more low or high rise accommodation within a 20-30 minute cycle to the city jobs.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

there looks to be a lot of building but its only about 25,000 units net a year.

London wants to grow even faster than the 100,000 people a year but high prices is limiting it. It may well grow by 200,000 people a year if it was encouraged to do so.


This wont happen but imo would be a good outcome would be to rebuild zone 2 at 3 x the density and get rid of cars (not taxis) in Z1&2 (bicycle walk bus taxi or scooter). The council estates are the easy one to start with the rebuilding but the privately owned homes too need to be bought up as whole blocks knocked down and rebuilt. A 50 year project to take inner London from about 3.3 million people towards 10 million and outer London towards 6 million.

'London' doesn't want anything : you totally miss the picture which includes actual human beings.
London has sufficient housing but too many people.

The reasons why people have come to London are many and complex but include:
-the breathtaking incompetence of the EU economic management that has caused huge unemployment in many of the EU countries.
-the UK has rejected many of the mad EU social chapter own goals
that have allowed for the creation of jobs even if at the low skilled
level
-sadly millions of UK people want to ditch our sensible policies and adopt the mad EU destructive policies instead : however, I guess there will be a consolation prize that London's attractiveness will decline and so the population will return to more people friendly levels.
-not much can be done about the poverty in the rest of the world, but Cell's electricity boom will soon make them too rich to come here too.

The population boom in London merely makes the people here worse off and reduces their living standards.

lisyloo

however, I guess there will be a consolation prize that London's attractiveness will decline

London seems to me to be incredibly popular the last few years.

The population boom in London merely makes the people here worse off and reduces their living standards.

In some ways yes, in other ways their lives are massively enriched e.g. career wise, culturally.

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

'London' doesn't want anything : you totally miss the picture which includes actual human beings.
London has sufficient housing but too many people.

The reasons why people have come to London are many and complex but include:
-the breathtaking incompetence of the EU economic management that has caused huge unemployment in many of the EU countries.

The trend for the world is toward megacities. More people are living more densely, everywhere. This isn't a London phenomenon.

I don't know what your financial situation is, perhaps you're retired already or doing ok financially somehow, but our country has high expenses and we need some way to pay these expenses. Obviously that is through tax. We can choose to choke off our most lucrative tax area so that some people get shorter queues at doctors or a seat on the tube, but this will have adverse impacts for everyone else.

Like it or not, the trend is toward larger more productive cities.

Filo25

mwpt wrote: »

Yes agreed, people still move to London despite high housing cost and crowding. I have the potential to move elsewhere in the world for no pay cut, or even potential pay rise yet I choose London because I enjoy it.

I would enjoy it more if we built more low or high rise accommodation within a 20-30 minute cycle to the city jobs.

Likewise, I enjoy living in London a great deal and been here for 23 years now, mind you according to the title I suppose I am part of the great immigrant invasion forcing out the English (I'm Northern Irish originally )

Generali

westernpromise wrote: »

TFL has taken the statistics down now, perhaps because they were so embarrassing, but it has been clear for a long time that as car journeys into central London reduce, traffic slows down. The policy response is to make it even worse for cars to come into London which makes the traffic even slower, and so on.

What happens is that people displaced from cars use buses and bikes instead (which unlike trains still have unused capacity). Buses block the whole width of the road and force all other vehicles behind them to stop whenever they do, and buses and bikes alike occupy a disproportionate amount of road space. Not only are there largely empty lanes for them both, but a cyclist three feet out from the kerb to whom you allow two feet of passing space is a six-foot-wide obstacle (tne same width as a Ford Focus) that carries a maximum of one passenger and comes to a near standstill on most slopes. It's not hard to see where traffic jams come from, as both buses and bikes are, basically, rollng roadblocks.

If you go back to say 1982 you find that the traffic has got slower at the same time as car journeys have fallen by well over 50%. The only other plausible factor that might explain this is if the various traffic management schemes that have proliferated since then themselves cause traffic jams.

If we removed those, and got people out of buses and back into their cars, London traffic would move a lot faster; air quality would also be improved by the removal from the road of filthy diesel buses.

Car miles in London between 1995/7 and 2012 fell by 37% apparently, mostly driven (pun intended) by improvements in public transport according to that nice Mr Cameron:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/transport/POST-briefing-on-peak-car.pdf

As a result traffic speeds have risen pretty consistently:

westernpromise

Generali wrote: »

As a result traffic speeds have risen pretty consistently

Nope.

Comprehensive measurements of traffic speeds in London date back to the 1970s...The basic picture to emerge over this 25-year period was one of traffic getting progressively slower in all parts of London. From the 1980/82 survey cycle to the final one in 2006/09, average weekday traffic speeds in Greater London fell by 18 per cent in the morning peak period, by 14 per cent in the interpeak period, and by 12 per cent in the evening peak period. This reduction was particularly intense in central London where, despite congestion charging, weekday morning peak speeds fell by 23 per cent over this three decade period.

Until the late 1990s, this trend towards slower speeds largely reflected increased traffic demand...From the late 1990s onwards, however, traffic levels began to decline, and TfL established that the primary reason for the continued reductions to traffic speed, which would otherwise have been unexpected given falling traffic levels, was a substantial increase in interventions that reduced the effective capacity of the road network for general traffic. These interventions ranged widely across policies to increase road safety, improve the urban realm, and to prioritise public transport, pedestrian and cycle traffic

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-4.pdf
(p95 - 96; my bold)

So there you have it from the horse's mouth: London traffic speeds have been falling for decades and this happened regardless of whether traffic volumes were rising or declining. The culprit was not traffic volumes but primarily policy decisions including a decision to push people out of cars and onto public transport, which slows traffic down.

London traffic is bad not because it isn't being managed, but because it is.