Si1 Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Post 2010 there's been a sharp shift away from Blair and Brown's subsidies of the regions (public sector employment and contracts, benefits). So the balance of jobs availability has shifted to the private sector and London. In the regions there has been a relative decline in ambitious jobs worth bothering over, and a net migration to London. This has been sharp, over only 5 years. Therefore London has seen increased population pressure and the regions decreased pressure. London IS a bubble, but it had a trigger for its creation from 2010 onwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 But London has experienced net migration to the rest of the country in total and in all age groups except the 20-30 age group. This is true for the last 25 years and remains so. See ONS. How about the last 5 years? A bubble needs a transient to trigger it, as well as availability of debt. The longer term trend doesn't interest me. Has there been a transient intake of population into London as a temporary or sudden change in the last 5 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Same for Cambridge. http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Net-migration-Cambridge-rest-UK-8211-fuelling/story-26824882-detail/story.html This fuels suggestions that Cambridge's rampant population boom is coming from overseas, with property specialists Savills recently revealing 45 per cent of new renters in the city came from abroad. The new national statistics also show a far greater flood of people out to rather than in from the surrounding districts – as well as a steady flow of movement between Oxford and London Cant disagree with that. Cambridge is an even more alien place than it was during the labour years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 Same for Cambridge. http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Net-migration-Cambridge-rest-UK-8211-fuelling/story-26824882-detail/story.html This fuels suggestions that Cambridge's rampant population boom is coming from overseas, with property specialists Savills recently revealing 45 per cent of new renters in the city came from abroad. The new national statistics also show a far greater flood of people out to rather than in from the surrounding districts as well as a steady flow of movement between Oxford and London Cant disagree with that. Cambridge is an even more alien place than it was during the labour years. The key thing being that it's happened faster than the infrastructure can keep up. And there been a ready availability of cheap credit at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giesahoose Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I find referring to 90% of the country as "the region's" offensive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 Sorry, I added more to my post. We mustn't also forget the effect of QE and the bailout of the finance sector and the massive rise in all assets as interest rates were slashed to near 0%. The affected the finance sector and their bonuses almost immediately. You may call it 'private sector' but the state's decisions affected them beneficially compared to other sectors of the population. Agreed But I'm focusing on the sharp differential in behaviour between London/SE and the rest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 I find referring to 90% of the country as "the region's" offensive I didn't mean to offend. I live in Leeds so it wasn't meant as a barb! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giesahoose Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I didn't mean to offend. I live in Leeds so it wasn't meant as a barb! Comment made not specific to you. It now appears to be commonly used and makes it sound like the rest of us are subservient to the mother ship. The while country is made up of regions including London and should all be equal. We are not all less equal parts of London. Iuswim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giesahoose Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Actually every time you hear the region's or province s replace with "poor little tikes" and see what I mean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Post 2010 there's been a sharp shift away from Blair and Brown's subsidies of the regions (public sector employment and contracts, benefits). So the balance of jobs availability has shifted to the private sector and London. In the regions there has been a relative decline in ambitious jobs worth bothering over, and a net migration to London. This has been sharp, over only 5 years. Therefore London has seen increased population pressure and the regions decreased pressure. London IS a bubble, but it had a trigger for its creation from 2010 onwards. Maybe should look at where these extra people are comming from that have been moving into London.....and the places the people that onced lived in London are moving to...home and away....I agree there are lots of extra pressures for many more people today than has been for very many years, more pressure for those who choose to make their home living in London. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 But London has experienced net migration to the rest of the country in total and in all age groups except the 20-30 age group. This is true for the last 25 years and remains so. See ONS. As for definitions of state spending....about 1 in 4 properties in London are now in receipt of HB in work or no. They have introduced sharply higher wages and help with homes for London workers in the state sector... Hence why buy-to-let appears to be a significantly bigger factor in London: Source Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pipllman Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 It doesn't have to be actual physical migration in does it? It could be, in part at least, driven by this overseas investment about which we have read so much - all these properties owned that remain dark at night Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 Read again. FINANCE SECTOR. Don't forget also that when they thought this was on the ropes, they also introduced loads of funding to silicon roundabout to attract international behemoths to centre their technology in London. This should have gone to Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester, Bristol, Glasgow etc. Agreed. That's consistent with the thrust of my thesis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) It doesn't have to be actual physical migration in does it? It could be, in part at least, driven by this overseas investment about which we have read so much - all these properties owned that remain dark at night Yes, and all those empty office blocks highly illuminated at night....what a waste.....must have money/energy to throw away. Edited October 5, 2015 by winkie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timak Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Same for Cambridge. http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Net-migration-Cambridge-rest-UK-8211-fuelling/story-26824882-detail/story.html This fuels suggestions that Cambridge's rampant population boom is coming from overseas, with property specialists Savills recently revealing 45 per cent of new renters in the city came from abroad. The new national statistics also show a far greater flood of people out to rather than in from the surrounding districts – as well as a steady flow of movement between Oxford and London Cant disagree with that. Cambridge is an even more alien place than it was during the labour years. I live in Cambridge and I'd say at least 80% of my child's reception class has 1 parent (or both) from overseas. I can't see how anyone can afford to buy/rent on a normal salary. I live on an ex-council estate in one of the cheaper suburbs and a 3 bed terrace now rents for £1200-£1350 a month and sells for £300k-£335k based on recent sales. There is next to no chance of a young locally born couple being able to afford a house in the area they grew up so they will move out to Newmarket/StIves/Huntingdon/Ely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Did somebody mention New Labour subsidies for the regions? Spend, spend, spend. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/11911150/George-Osborne-poaches-former-Blair-ally-Lord-Adonis-to-head-infrastructure-commission.html George Osborne will pledge to “shake Britain out of its inertia” by handing decisions on building billions of pounds worth of new airports, roads, homes and power stations to an independent commission chaired by a former Labour cabinet minister. In a significant blow for Jeremy Corbyn, the Chancellor will announce that Lord Adonis, the former Transport Secretary, is quitting his party to chair a new National Infrastructure Commission. The new body is an attempt to “depoliticise” infrastructure projects and will herald a wave of building across the countryside. The move is likely to be unpopular with traditional Conservative voters, and sources close to the Chancellor said the initiative shows “a willingness to confront the Tory shires” after years of opposition to building projects. Edited October 5, 2015 by zugzwang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 It doesn't have to be actual physical migration in does it? It could be, in part at least, driven by this overseas investment about which we have read so much - all these properties owned that remain dark at night No that's a different part of the bubble mechanism. That's the credit driven speculation responding to the initial trigger IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timak Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Comment made not specific to you. It now appears to be commonly used and makes it sound like the rest of us are subservient to the mother ship. The while country is made up of regions including London and should all be equal. We are not all less equal parts of London. Iuswim I was annoyed to hear Cambridge referred to as "greater London" the other day. We are 60 miles away, have 1000+ years of history as a major city and an 800 year old world famous university yet someone on the TV news was attributing the success of the local economy on easy access to London! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 I was annoyed to hear Cambridge referred to as "greater London" the other day. We are 60 miles away, have 1000+ years of history as a major city and an 800 year old world famous university yet someone on the TV news was attributing the success of the local economy on easy access to London! By the same token people say Leeds is part of greater Manchester, a similar distance away. You're right in the case of Cambridge IMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latterdaysinner Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Big urban centres are just more bubble-prone. It was the same with Tokyo vs. the rest of Japan, Dublin vs. the rest of Ireland etc etc etc. I don't think that there is anything specific about London. Most of the things discussed on this thread fall into the category of ex-post justification. They might be true, but without a counterfactual, there is no way of knowing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 Big urban centres are just more bubble-prone. It was the same with Tokyo vs. the rest of Japan, Dublin vs. the rest of Ireland etc etc etc. I don't think that there is anything specific about London. Most of the things discussed on this thread fall into the category of ex-post justification. They might be true, but without a counterfactual, there is no way of knowing. Fair enough. I'm just trying to clarify what the trigger for this boom was, given that there could have been many potential triggers especially given a capital city. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 But London has experienced net migration to the rest of the country in total and in all age groups except the 20-30 age group. This is true for the last 25 years and remains so. See ONS. As for definitions of state spending....about 1 in 4 properties in London are now in receipt of HB in work or no. They have introduced sharply higher wages and help with homes for London workers in the state sector. Finally, because of the way the Whitehall based civil service and politicians allocate capex on transport (a flawed 'business case' prioritisation process) London has been in receipt I think of about 90% of all capex. The only other way you get transport improvement is if your region qualifies for EU regional assistance like Cornwall or North East. If you are in the middle like Leeds and most of the rest of the country, you have to wait until you crumble and hope you're poor enough to qualify for EU funds. As a Londoner I would like to say feel free to cut HB which is being paid to London. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve99 Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 However Cambridge is, financially speaking, in the same city as London. Real people cant afford housing and perhaps never will and the incumbents are mighty smug about it which I found out after a visit to an old friend who moved up there before prices jumped over the moon. The casual talk amongst the owning class residents is the same as London, house prices, house prices and house prices and smug comments like I don't care if my house is now worth 600k, its just my house and I live in it (implying 'stiff sh*T' if you cant afford it, I can because I'm clever) in fact I would rate Cambridge house owners as being genetically identical to London house owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Did somebody mention New Labour subsidies for the regions? Spend, spend, spend. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/11911150/George-Osborne-poaches-former-Blair-ally-Lord-Adonis-to-head-infrastructure-commission.html We're subsidising the regions ? You are having a laugh. All the focus on the London region is way the biggest 'subsidy' of the lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Prices set at the margin and all the bail out/QE fed banker bonuses etc needing some place to go and mainly in London/bankerland where they mostly live. Latterly a few rich overseas people jumping on the band wagon along with possible hedge fund investment. Plus a government wanting to buy votes and a lot of London and the South East used to be on average mainly Conservative or at least was years back - although in London the house price policy seems to be rebounding on the Conservatives now. Edited October 5, 2015 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.