Interesting from Danny Dorling

Dorling’s analysis of the housing market last month revealed average house prices in Oxford were more than 16 times the local average annual income compared with 15.7 times those in London.

Rather important for a Professor moving from Sheffield to Oxford, that. As he says in one of his recent books, it’s all really about the top 10% getting pissed off about the way the 1% are soaring away from them. Those bastards in trade and banking are making ever so much more than their upper middle class compatriots.

12 thoughts on “Interesting from Danny Dorling”

  1. But there is actually something going wrong, isn’t there? Because there should really be room in London for all of the nation’s top 10% (not that anything remotely approaching all of the nation’s top 10% will be living there).

    And yet none of them could afford to (move into), say, Westminster based on their own earnings, because at one end the billionaires have made housing so expensive, and at the other end, the government is milking them dry to keep Westminster’s huge number of poor in Westminster.

  2. But there is actually something going wrong, isn’t there? Because there should really be room in London for all of the nation’s top 10% (not that anything remotely approaching all of the nation’s top 10% will be living there).

    That would be true if London was merely a national capital as opposed to a global capital. Now we can argue that London should not play global capital, but whilst it is, there is no reason why the nation’s top 10% should be able to live there.

  3. BiG,

    Not really, because you’ll still need people manning a till in a Waitrose or Pret a Manger, or people to sweep the roads.

    It would make sense to reduce HB to the level of say, a house in Hull, though. Companies would have then have to pay something closer to the real price of staff, which would then encourage greater efficiency (e.g. Pret fits vending machines instead of hiring people).

  4. In Oxford it’s partly about the Council pursuing policies designed to deny young professionals places to live.

  5. bloke (not) in spain

    Thanks Mr Stig. Point I’ve made often before. “Affordable housing” is simply subsidising business wage bills. Left to themselves, markets will provide affordable housing because you can’t have a city of all chiefs & no indians. The chiefs don’t get to eat..

  6. Not wishing to sound like a bastard commie, but I believe before ‘affordable housing’, security guards, cleaners etc. in Central London were living several to the room. (The alternative being spending half your time and wages commuting in from outside.)

    The real scandal is the AH being used as a perk to councillors, friends thereof, etc. and not cleaners.

  7. Danny Dorling?–isn’t he the twat who stars in all those straight to video chav crime films?

  8. bloke (not) in spain

    @RleJ
    The actual truth of the “affordable housing” for London I got from the unofficial lips of the region’s primary housing association, area manager. Policy was to phase out the smaller one/two bed units in favour of properties suitable for large families. Others are being induced to move outside the M25. Right to buy & such.
    Maybe they do intend Central London to be for chiefs & indians. Although, possibly not Indians.

  9. Is it still the case at Oxford that if your fellowship is in a rich college, money flows like water into your pockets, but not if your fellowship is in a poor college? If so, can we expect DD to write rudely about that system?

  10. “In Oxford it’s partly about the Council pursuing policies designed to deny young professionals places to live.”

    Do tell.

    My four years there were not exactly the happiest of my life, and insofar as the town is concerned, I’m with General Melchett – “Oxford’s a dump”. It really, really is. An expensive dump.

  11. The real scandal is the AH being used as a perk to councillors, friends thereof, etc. and not cleaners.

    Entirely predictable. Paris has had a few blocks of “low cost” apartments in the swankiest area of town, intended for poor people. Only it is state bureaucrats who decide who gets to live there at negligible rents and, funnily enough, it is usually the offspring of well-connected politicians.

  12. Rock bottom has been reached: BiS “Left to themselves ,markets will provide affordable housing ” !! Gawd blimey!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *