Trying to buy a house in this area is near impossible

[Loz]

Blackcurrant Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > But that 'value' is irrelevant until, as I said, you actually sell it and realise that price. Until

> > then it has no value. As Northern Rock shareholders found - they could have been taxed on

> > the 'value' of their shares only to discover they actually were worthless.

>

> So if I have ?20 in my pocket, it's actually worthless until I spend it and realise it's true

> value, because who's to say there won't be a plunge in the value of sterling tomorrow.

We're talking assets, not cash. This is not a terribly difficult concept! 10% of ?20 is still ?2, whatever the value of the pound. 10% of the value of a house is not definable until it is sold. It can be estimated based on an approximate value IF you sold it right now, but not defined until you actually do.

[PokerTime]

I also never even hinted at anything like racism....sigh. Anyway..........moving on.

I think London is heading for mega-city status SJ, but isn't that just what happens over time? People go where they think work might be.

[StraferJack]

But as of now it's not more populous than 70 ish years ago

[numbers]

mega city? More like Cursed Earth ;-)

[????]

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?

[PokerTime]

You are right SJ....

Here's the census data too....

http://www.cch.kcl.ac.uk/legacy/teaching/av1000/numerical/problems/london/london-pop-table.html

[????]

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

[PokerTime]

I think you have to factor internal migration too. Tebbit telling all the Northerners to get on their bikes and the like.

If you look at the census figures, London's real population explosion was from 1871 to 1901 when the population almost doubled. That was the precursor to slum clearance and all the other social issues that came into play in the early 1900's. Hence the mass building programmes between 1910 and 1935.

Compare that to the last 100 years that suggests around a 10% increase. I'm not convinced that immigration is the big issue there, over migration.

[StraferJack]

What are you on about quids?

I post a graph just to give some background to otta saying london has never been this full

Which seems fair enough

And you barge in with "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?"

I literally have no idea where you are coming from today

[????]

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.

[PokerTime]

But even at 8.2 million, the capital has held that amount of people before, 50s/ 60s/ 70s.

What has changed is the move towards home ownership by the majority of the population over renting. That has had more impact on demand that immigration imo. Also families don't all live together anymore either. I would argue that it's that that has suddenly presented a new demand for more accomodation. Increasing divorce rates, increasing numbers of people that don't marry, longer lives, these have all risen in parallel to new demand for certain types of housing.

The other interesting thing to note, is the drop in population from 71 - 81 - A reflection of the deep economic stagnation of the 70's probably. But did we lose masses of houses as a result of that drop? No, they just sat unoccupied.

[StraferJack]

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

[????]

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?

[????]

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?

[numbers]

PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Also families don't all live

> together anymore either. I would argue that it's

> that that has suddenly presented a new demand for

> more accomodation. Increasing divorce rates,

> increasing numbers of people that don't marry,

> longer lives, these have all risen in parallel to

> new demand for certain types of housing.

I already said that. Is there an echo in here?

edited: cut and paste error.

edited again: calling 'clique' really loses a poster any sort of credibility in my view.

[Otta]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What are you on about quids?

>

> I post a graph just to give some background to

> otta saying london has never been this full

>

> Which seems fair enough

>

> And you barge in with "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?"

>

> I literally have no idea where you are coming from

> today

You took me literally which is fair enough. I shouldn't have said that, I just meant in recentish years. Okay?

This is getting shitty and I'm clearly not clued up enough to play with the big boys so I'll shut up. But that particular post was actually just meant as a calming thang, I wasn't thinking too much about the numbers.

Regarding immigration, the numbers aren't as huge as some would have us all believe for sure, but they're significant.

[PokerTime]

The increase of the last 20 years has only replaced the decrease of the 10 years before that!

[Blackcurrant]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blackcurrant Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Loz Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

>

> > > But that 'value' is irrelevant until, as I

> said, you actually sell it and realise that price.

> Until

> > > then it has no value. As Northern Rock

> shareholders found - they could have been taxed

> on

> > > the 'value' of their shares only to discover

> they actually were worthless.

> >

> > So if I have ?20 in my pocket, it's actually

> worthless until I spend it and realise it's true

> > value, because who's to say there won't be a

> plunge in the value of sterling tomorrow.

>

> We're talking assets, not cash. This is not a

> terribly difficult concept! 10% of ?20 is still

> ?2, whatever the value of the pound. 10% of the

> value of a house is not definable until it is

> sold. It can be estimated based on an approximate

> value IF you sold it right now, but not defined

> until you actually do.

Your initial point was that assets have no value and are worthless. I think you've realised that was nonsensical as you've repositioned and are now saying assets do have value but that value is hard to specify exactly until point of sale. Fine. But it can be estimated easily and accurately enough to make taxation practical. Even on eBay I can establish market value of any common item by selecting completed sales and looking at comparables. Houses are valued the same way. It's even easier to value shares or other financial assets including cash (which is also an asset).

In any case your point that property, being a worthless asset, can't be taxed is pretty obviously untrue as various countries already do collect wealth taxes based on property, including the UK, which uses residential property values to calculate council tax. You can justifiably quibble about how efficient or fair the valuation process is, but that's very different from arguing that the value is nil, which I think you've got muddled about.

[StraferJack]

Otta, I'm as confused as you by what's going on here

I wasn't engaging with the angrier posters. I just saw your post and wondered "is that true?"

So I had a quick google and thought that was interesting. Wasn't mean to be any more than that

[Otta]

Cool SJ

PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The increase of the last 20 years has only

> replaced the decrease of the 10 years before that!

And again I'm not checking figures, but perhaps we have a lot more older people now than 20 years ago. Either way we're running out of homes.

[LondonMix]

Oh God, mention of Nazi's already?! Motorbird's question hasn't been answered yet and anyone trying to advocate for policy changes should better understand supply issues. This thread has highlighted the demand issues quite well: population increases driven by increases life expectancy, more families choosing to stay in London, internal and foreign immigration due to jobs growth in London vs elsewhere, the Help to Buy policy, the attractiveness of London property as an investment both to foreign buyers and internal buy-to-let investors for a multitude of reasons.

So we get where demand is coming from. Why isn't the market responding by building more homes as one would expect, affordable or otherwise? I really don't know but understanding why the market is failing to deliver more homes given the demand must be explored in more detail.

How that new housing is allocated between social housing for key workers and lower wage earners, the private sector etc can only be discussed properly if we understand the issue fully. I don't have a clear picture of the supply side issues at all yet.

If the final picture is that the market can't provide what the people deem to be a public good, then government should step in to acheive what the majority believe is fair economic allocation of housing (right now London is circa 19 percent social housing)- should that level be maintained, be higher or lower? On what grounds are people asserting so: how many key workers need to live in London and how may low income earners does London need economically and to prevent London from becoming a rich Ghetto? Trying to suggest policy changes without having clear what you want to ultimately acheive is difficult...

Also, the assumption that people are leveraging themselves to the hilt is simply not true. The average first time buyer in London borrows circa 3.7x their income. The average mover borrows significantly less than this. I've liked to these stats eleswhere in the thread.

[PokerTime]

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.

[PokerTime]

I did offer an answer to motorbirds Q LM. And made the point that most development in London over the last 30 years has been the wrong kind of development.

[lounge lizard]

Long time lurker on this thread, otta's contributions strike me as very valid, I'm a previous renter just off Ll lane our private LL was possibly the most unpleasant individual it's ever been my misfortune to encounter and the fact that he is at least ?300k better off for our 24 month tennancy, probably more than that really upsets me. It is a free market and should be, for better and for worse, some people took a risk that for one I was 'nt willing to take, and have gained quite spectacularly from it. To be honest at the lower levels of the market I would reluctantly blame the sell of off social housing by successive governments, I 'm not sure what can be done about it but please only shop places where they pay the living wage so people have a chance of affording life in london and where ever you work, ask how much the cleaners are paid

[????]

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.