????

Don't bother Loz, people just don't get it London was knocked off the perch as the primary global financial centre earlier this year to New York, it's draining away. People seem to think we can lose all of this without any harm to the economy, tax revenues, public services, they have no grasp of the fundamentals of economics, at all. Depressing. Most of Gordon Brown's spending flourish post 2000 was on the back of City Taxation if we want to get rid of it fine they say ....but that means similar 'trims' to the Public Sector on top of the cuts already witnessed. Good luck with that.... And, no, for the millionth time I don't work in the City or FS or in a any related support area - Management consultancy, accountancy, Legal, high end restaurants, etc etc....

Utter dire stuff yet again beaten by a crap team with no confidence 1-0, I bet all the bottom 3 wish they still had us to play....I think we'll stay up probably but I can't see the Fat walrus surviving under any circumstances now. And good riddance to him, and to be frank, hopefully half of his shite signings with him. I can't see anything but a big struggle for us next year without a major investments and new ideas, a shite bag of a season....

I see another hilarious one's appeared.....Gone to the dogs etc

it's spelling : )

Hangers Lane - on the Tube - Great vibe, Stoke Newington, no tube, shitehole Meaningless comparisons are just that

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Ageist as well as insulting. Standards have > slipped so much since the rise of the internet > > Like you I don't give a toss what happens to the > value of the home that I live in as it's my home; > it's expensive enough already and I don't sit > there gleefully calculating how much it's gone up > in value every week. It's just that I would prefer > better public transport. Not too much to ask > really, but clearly unacceptable to you. Er, it's not unacceptable to me at all, it's just not what I want, am I allowed to think differently to you? Apparently not.....

Given that he's mates with SAF and with a budget he'd be as good as anyone in Italy, I think BFS is the obvious choice for Utd (or Arsenal) or Norwich, etc

zzzzzz not going to get into one of these on a Friday, you dull old thing. I don't want a tube because I like areas of London without a tube as they are less transient and have a more community feel IMO, I'm happy travelling on the bus and don't give a toss what happens to the value of the home that I live in as it's my home... nothing to do with bonuses or Mercedes or anything like that.... Is that ok?

...and there's plenty of others who share my view including it looks like wavy line and ED Cm, and out's not because we are rich fookers who get chauffeured into work...try reading what people are actually saying maybe next time?

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > What don't you want, ????? A bonus? A Mercedes? > > If you're talking about the tube, what about those > people who are clearly less fortunate than you and > who have inferior public transport? Don't you > care about them? After all, we're all in this > together. > > And why the capital letters? There's no need to > shout. WTF are you on about? I travel by bus to work everyday as anyone who actually read my posts would know, you're are a chippy assumptionists aren't you? I don't want a tube because I think it would spoil the vibe of SE22 as I posted earlier and have many times if you read rather than got all high horse about me being an evil capitalist banker. It makes me laugh what people assume about other people because of their user name and/or they didn't worship at the alter of socialism..... Stop thinking in stereotypes ZT.......

BFS is your answer

I STILL DON'T WANT ONE

Loz - City AM said today take a mile off the greenbelt surrounding all of London= housing building boom - with related economic benefit, and house price stabilisation. I tend to agree,

do the middle class fish in the boating lake still bite? Oh yes......

Mr B has come over all gushing like because he is temporarily back somewhere with a pulse and residents as young as him.....it's only Altima Court for the rest of us

...these threads just get funnier and funnier. No seriously, a really good and original effort.

That you ban - for life - the next person who starts a 'hilarious' "Trying to buy a --------- in east Dulwich...." thread

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > StraferJack Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > but if we imagine a scenario where "all"* of > the > > homes which supposedly need building are built > - > > who sells them and how much would they be? > > I think a better question is where would they be? > There is no shortage of available housing in the > outer suburbs of Manchester and Liverpool, but no > one really wants to live there. On the other hand, > London seems to be the place most people want to > live, but where can we build the necessary number > of houses there? > > Maybe a better approach is to work out how we can > people to want to live in the places we actually > have spare housing capacity? i.e. jobs. Well the market driven answer to that is that rising property prices will do that themselves(see the Telegraph artice which concludes that London's mad prices could result in a renaissance in other cities as creatives the yopung etc move away> State intervention will not do this to any significance. Of course, that still results in people saying they are forced out of London etc etc

Supply & demand innit - building enough* (and I think it's a lot) new homes makes property cheaper, or decelerates rises Taking steam out of the market itself encourages those just sitting on empty properties (and I don't think there's many of them in 'normal' residential areas to be honest) to sell. Makes people cautious about housing as a pure investment opportunities. Why we in London (almost uniquely) avoided a significant and long term crash in 2008 is becuase there's not enough supply to satisfy demand...

The simple and obvious answer as a gazillion people have said is to: a) build more homes b) not stoke up booms for political reasons the 'state', in one form or another, bears the most responsiblty for a) not happening and is responsible for b)

so presumably if you lost money on your home you could claim a rebate then?

PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm inclined to think changing demographics have > had more of an impact than immigration/ migration > per se. That's not to say of course that if > migration were to continue at current levels it > won't become a major factor. I just don't think we > are there yet. But it needs to be considered when > planning for the future. We are there already, BBC C&P and this impacts on the London - to reiterate, i don't care about this, we are a modern global city, it's good but it has wrong footed our planners What the census shows beyond any doubt is that the UK is in the midst of an astonishing era of demographic shift - and like the experience of many of its international peers, it is being driven by globalisation. Ten years ago, there were some 4.3 million people in the UK who told the census that they had been born abroad. Almost all areas had been touched by changes from immigration - although in some areas the numbers were so small that it clearly amounted to little more than a family moving in or out - the phenomenon of a single Indian restaurant in a village, for instance. MOST BORN ABROAD Brent 171,000 (55%) Newham 165,000 (54%) Westminster 117,000 (53%) Kensington and Chelsea 82,000 (52%) In 2011, there were 7.5 million people born abroad living in England and Wales - up almost three million and taking their proportion of the population to 13%. The UK is experiencing such rapid flows and movements of people from so many parts of the world, that parts of it can lay claim to being "super-diverse" - the idea that an area is home to so many people it's almost impossible to describe it in simple terms, such as home to one community or another. The 2011 census used three measures to understand migration - it asked people where they were born, when they came to the UK and what passport they held. The Census also tried to capture who was a long-term migrant and who was only in the UK temporarily.

Palace result still keeps me a bit nervous.......I think they'll do us on Saturday : (. What I'm kind of hoping for is we stay up on 37 which puts BFS in a pretty untenable position...apparently, significant numbers of ST holders have written to Gold & Sullivan saying they won't be renewing with the current dirge they have to watch

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But why are you screaming all this stuff at me?? > > I haven't suggested or called you anything of the > sort. I don't think anyone has tbh Fook me, after 8 years you still think I'm screaming? At you?

the old SJ 'wot me guv' tactic...sigh. Anyway, do you think there's been a rapid increase in population in the last 20 years which is accelerating? Do you think immigration has contributed to this? Do you think part of the housing crisis is because of this unanticipated increase in population (from migration/immigration and birth /morbitity rate changes) Or...don't mention the war?