????

well google figures for kids that's parents were born out of the UK for an example or look at the census data in more detail and articles printed at the same time etc. It's a fact...it's not racist to say that, . As i said earlier personally I think it makes a positive contribution to the UK and London and and will continue to do so but the downside of a rapid increase in population is the pressure on infrastructure and services even in the 90s planners weren't anticipating these population levels - to state this doesn't make anyone a nazi/swivel eyed UKIP moron.

that's upto 2001, add the 8.2 million census figure for 2011 and you'll see the trend and that it peaked in 39 troughed in 81-91 and is now growing rapidly, immigration is a significant factor in that and has impacted on demand for housing and also prices

but the trend was downwards from 70 odd years ago (and their was a housing crisis then,,,people lived in slums) until the 1990s since when it's been increasing and that's accelerating, ONE of the factors behind that, and not an insignificant one, is immigration. That's a fact and a fact I am personally not bothered about at all but one we can't mention in your world SJ? it's a non mentionable??? For fear we are nazis?? or is it a lie?

lol.....ZT you read any of this?

That's fine by me but don't start getting personal again or EVER smear me with a hint of racism because you don't like my style - report it and get it banned (if Admin agrees) or your just have to live with it because this is a public forum

By the way PokerTime as you went back I just went back to page 36 as I remembered our debate the other night, which I'd not looked at since You start one post with "oh how wrong you are" or some equally patronising tosh And then a few posts later it's "it's a forum debate there is no right or wrong" or some similar inconsistent tosh

Bollox you didn't read my post properly and jumped to the Daily Mail smear because that's a pavlovian reaction from some if you mention the I word, that is also why I spelt it out in clear terms because certain people jump to conclusions ...as you did, which is precisely why i spelt it out, irony of ironies. Go back and read my post on social housing BTW and see how that stands up to your version. You are confusing open debate with a debate along the lines you want and then insulting those that don't go along with that....which is fairly typical

PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jesus, you seem to have a real issue with sensible > debate ????, but the issue is all yours. You don't > know anything about my level of experience on the > subject or anything else. But continue to make > yourself look a bit irrational by all means. > > London has ALWAYS had immigration. Similarly most > newcomers are internal migrants. And the > overwhleming majority of migrants work and are a > whopping third less likely to be on benefits than > British nationals according to the DWPs own > records. They are not the drain that the Daily > Mail likes to protray them as. It's a red herring. Did you read any of my post??? Where did i say any of that about migrants not working. Don't start banding stuff like that about daily mail etc willy nilly, I spelt out my support for immigration...so don't start that smearing crap and i really mean that.......

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Zebedee Tring Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Below is an extract from today's "Grauniad" > comment page: > > > > "... there are 30m-40m actual or potential > bedrooms nationwide not slept in every night ... > > The tiny fraction of these found in council > housing are being aggressively pursued through > the > > bedroom tax; public policy takes no > responsibility - and shows no interest - in what > happens with the > > rest". > > > > I couldn't have put it better myself. > > Why? What I do with my spare bedroom is my > business and the taxpayer is not paying me for it. > In fact, I arguably pay extra council tax because > of it. Well said Loz. I was just going to go round and tell my 70 something couple neighbours to immediately leave their 3 bedroom house that they bought years ago and no doubt paid a lot of mortgage payments to the banks from their hard earned salary as a tailor and nurse, that they must open up their house to strangers as Owen Jones and his mates think they are greedy capitalist bastards.....and then your post bought me back to my senses.

Anyway 41 pages on the problem and its causes and no-one has even mentioned immigration. Now to be absolutely crystal clear for one dimensional political thinkers, even though i hate the Guardian,I have no problem with immigration at all and am perfectly happy to live in a vibrant city that welcomes economic migrants from around the world and think it has been an enormous benefit to our city and country - we have a younger more dynamic population than most of our western european neighbours thanks to immigration. But the success of London and the UK in drawing in immigrants from Europe and farther afield has itself had significant impact on our transport, public services and, er, housing. I don't think that any govt is particularly at fault for not anticipating the significance of immigration.

PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's wny rent caps have to about limiting annual > rates of increase, not put a ceiling on a one size > fits all rent. > > ????, you keep banging on about leftism! What are > you talking about? This has been a very good, > interesting and eloquent debate about some very > real issues, with a variety of viewpoints (all > valid) and a general consensus on the difficulties > of finding workable solutions. All you seem to > have contributed is some rage driven dismissal of > any criticism of the market as leftist nonsense! > Incredible.... Oh great, a self appointed Forum Sherriff, love them. I've posted plenty of comment on here just in my style. So, as you've bought the subject up...personally I find your wordy, naive, patronising, often confusing opinion with fact, and sometimes quite rude too hidden under a cloak of faux - reasonability posting style a right pain in the arse but it's a forum so I put up with it.....

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ???? Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yup, everyones from the lefts being banging on > > about THAT. If we look back at when we had that > > before (rent control) from before= no > investement > > in private stock, swathes of cheap slumlike > > horrible condition and er Rachman....lefties > love > > it though as the assumption is always that > private > > BTL lanlords are always scumbags who dion't > care > > about their property etc et c etc > > > > If we bring back rent controls without a > massive > > investment in social housing as an alternative, > > we'll end up with a dteriotaing private renting > > stock increasingly in the hands of a new > > generation of Racchmans > > > > ..brilliant solution! > > > I don't claim to be an expert by any stretch, but > surely it could be done... well... a bit > differently? > > And of course not every private landlord is a > greedy scumbag, but plenty of them are quite > frankly. And to be honest, if I had a spare house > I'd get as much as I could for it. That doesn't > make it right, and perhaps someone needs to say > "actually, this is what is fair for that > prop[erty, and this is what you can have". It's > not like I'm suggesting rents go down really low, > but frankly people shouldn't be paying more than > ?1500 rent a month for a 3 bed house whatever area > it's in. Graet. Agreed , I'm moving to a 3 bedder in Chelsea pronto for ?1500 a month. Come on FFS. What annotys me are just the general assumptions - renting of the state is great in terms of product and services (cloud cukoo) - I accept it's often cheaper if not renting off a corporation is ok as above??mmm But somehow Renting off a private individual living in their gaff, which is probably a significant assett for them, = scumbags, poor service, no investments in repairs/maintenance etc etc. Crappy appliances/furniture etc Yup all makes sense Except intuitevly it doesn'T and in my small sample experience (so not science) I can tell you who was by far the shittiest landlord...er, the state. And, people I know who have BTL look after them (it makes no-sense not to)and most are pretty ameniable to their tenats It's just that in the mish-mash of whiny leftism an indivudual owning a second property or a third is somehow an immoral robber baron of modern capitalism whereas of course the state or mass, corportae lanlords, like say German Banks are fine To be absoloutely clear I own my gaff and it's my home and I have no BTL. I'm just sticking up for those that do, they are a long way down the list of whose fault it is why we are where we are a long way...

Ps What's got us into this mess is draconian planning laws (the state) and ironically, tory politicians trying to stoke pre-election booms (the state)..... not the market

Yup, everyones from the lefts being banging on about THAT. If we look back at when we had that before (rent control) from before= no investement in private stock, swathes of cheap slumlike horrible condition and er Rachman....lefties love it though as the assumption is always that private BTL lanlords are always scumbags who dion't care about their property etc et c etc If we bring back rent controls without a massive investment in social housing as an alternative, we'll end up with a dteriotaing private renting stock increasingly in the hands of a new generation of Racchmans ..brilliant solution!

twas ever thus

`I didnt say most I gave and SE22 house as an example and in a few years most of London will be like that but IHT Threshold is ?325K so you don't pay anything up to that...is ?325K just a pittance PokerTime???

PS PokerTime - you mean there are lobbyist companies and lobbyists whose sole function is to get paid by companies to lobbY? NO?! well Fook my old boots I never knew that..you are so enlightening with your insider knowledge and stating of 'facts'.... PS Notting Hill was largely a shithole 30 years ago along with much of North 'always been affluent' Kensington, so your 'facts' are often really just personal opinion, some of which is wrong......

PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh ????...how wrong you are. Take a look at how > much an electoral compaigns cost and who funds > that. Look to America for an even better model. I > have friends that work for companies whose sole > aim is to lobby MPs on behalf of wealthy > corporations and clients. It's nothing to do with > right or left, but basic economics. Plutocrasy IS > at play and every major writer on the ethics of > economics agrees with that view. We live in a > bottom up economy...not top down. All the evidence > and data supports that. That's why things like > inequality and upward social mobility can be > measured. > > If you want to talk about electoral reform, then > yes we can have a discussion on how > unrepresentative the current system is of what > people really vote for. It does need reform imo. > > Yes, around 70% of homes are privately owned. So > what? That's not this issue here. What we are > talking about is a trend that will see those homes > owned by a smaller percentage of the population if > things go on as they do. Already, many people > inheriting property have little to show for it > once tax is paid and the proceeds split between > children. > > I agree and I disagree Loz. As a nation, party > stronghold's haven't changed much in a century. > Most people still tend to vote as their parents > do/ did. It's estimated that as little as 300,000 > floating voters actually can decide a general > election. If we had a representative electoral > system, we'd mostly have hung parliaments, which > is actually a truer reflection of democrasy. At > present, too many people are not engaged in > politics, too many people just follow parents and > we have a system where a party can get majority > power even though less than half the population > voted for them. If a party wants to control > parliament and claim the mandate of the people, it > should have to work far harder to engage public > support than it currently does. lol - IHT is currently 325K - with a fair chance it'll get indexed again soon - and then the rest is taxed at 40%...'little to show for it'......what planet are you on if splitting the proceeds on a ?1m property in say SE22 releases over 700K net to, say 2 siblings, so ?350k each= little to show for it????? A mere quibble of a sum eh?

Democracy is what it is and not funded by the super wealthy, that's a tired old cliche and immensley patronising to the electorate. Parties don''t change much because people don't AS YET want that sort of change not becuase 'Murdoch controls the media' , 'if voting changed anything they'd abolish it' etc etc student nonsense. There have been plenty of opportunities to change the system - you could have voted for real socialist or whatever Scargills party was, you could now vote UKIP or Green, but don't hold you breathe when an election comes along, Ed M could take Labour (not funded by the mega rich incidentally) to a more alternative position, again don't hold your breathe, youth could (and some do) motivate themselves to collectively vote...the plutocracy's not stopping them BUT most people aren't really poor, the majority still own a home (even under the yoke of a mortgage); many will inherit some wealth through property at some point; people don't want to risk this state of 'comfort' through anything vaguely radical - if you want a revolution you need mortgage rates at 14%; a 50% drop in house prices; etc etc Fook me nearly 30% unemployment in some souther european countries hasn't caused that much of a stir, so toa degree I agree with the 2nd part of your analyiss

Westwood just poooped my chances...

There's also a bit of rose tinted going on in the Gentrification thing, not all, but huge numbers of white working class born and bred Londoners couldn't wait to get out of this 'shithole'* from the 1960s onwards, this was still around in the 90s *SE anywhere, E anywhere, most of the Ns even foooking Islington and Notting Hill

and, unexpected bonus of Scottish Independence part 2 (part 1 being Ed Milliband never being PM), is not having to turn on the radio for a feast of sports and finding the game on 5Live is StJohnstone Vs Aberdeen.........

MrBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1000. Schoolboy error MrBen......only in the Lounge

McIlroy (doing well), Rose, Mahan, Westwood, Dubuisson

As you know I've had a bet on Rory...at 12s without Tiger=value