This seems pretty sensible really

Tens of thousands of poor families have left inner London in the past five years, creating “social cleansing on a vast scale” and leaving large parts of the capital as the preserve of the rich, figures suggest.

Umm, why shouldn’t rich people live where property is expensive and poor people live where it is cheap?

We think it’s OK that the poor don’t gorge on filet mignon and foie gras. That holidays are spent at Clacton not Curacao. why would or even should we expect poor people to live where just the land for a house is worth £1 million?

34 thoughts on “This seems pretty sensible really”

  1. Just so we’re clear, the Left are all in favour of people migrating across half the world to improve their lives; but woe betide anyone who has to move a few miles to another borough.

  2. From a quick glance at the map, no borough has seen an increase in free school meal provision, and most have seen a decrease. It could of course be that the poor have all moved out of London- or it could be that they are less poor.

  3. Andrew, they are being entirely consistent. They are in favour of population movements when they can be used to gerrymander them seats. Easy!

  4. Surreptitious Evil

    Pendantically, if the population is moving, it isn’t gerrymandering. Gerrymandering requires a redrawing (or an unfair bias in such) of the electoral boundaries.

  5. So socialism helps to fuck up the economy and create large numbers of un or under-employed, ill-educated people who are dependant on benefits and have no hope of buying their own homes. Then, when people in these circs have to move because they have to rent and the taxpayer isn’t going to pay millionaire rents for them this is somehow the fault of those who are better off.

    If Coprbyn(e) and his arseholic crew care that much they could start by getting the state out of education and out of the economy in general. The “poor” would get richer and would then start to buy their own homes.Private property rights in a free society would mean that they could not be turfed out of their own homes . The poor would gradually gain a real stake in life rather than the bogus “stakeholder “shite that the left peddle and would begin to find pride and self-sufficiency to be virtues once again.

  6. “why shouldn’t rich people live where property is expensive and poor people live where it is cheap?”

    Because Nazi!

  7. In the last 40 years or so, nobody put in much of a word against the subsidies which led to the social cleansing from London of middle income people earning just a little more than the welfare threshold.
    They figured out that they could live a better life an hour from London. They didn’t bleat about it. But it’s left a sort of egg-timer shaped income distribution in London of poor and rich and not much inbetween.

  8. Andrew Carey: That’s a great point. Personally I think there are benefits in a “social mix” in any given locality. Economic segregation has many of the same poor consequences as ethnic segregation (which often has economics as well as social factors as a root cause: less well off migrants move en masse to the cheapest neighborhood). To what extent social and fiscal policy should be directed to counteract that I’m unsure, but the egg timer is a very unsatisfactory solution.

  9. Andrew C, anecdata alert, but until recently I worked at a mid-sized London law firm. Not high wages by mega firm standards, but still fairly good money. No one with children, from senior partner to secretary, lived in Central London (which I define as Zone1-2).

  10. Native Brits have been pushed out of their capital city by foreign millionaires buying properties they rarely visit. Lefties don’t object to that: it all helps destroy Britain, which is the basic leftie objective.

  11. There’s a solid honest question: If someone making good money can’t afford to live in London, why should someone with no income (aside from state subsidies) live there? There’s no right to housing in a particular location. I fail to see (merely by dint of having a restricted income) why a poorer person “deserves” (by somehow ‘adding to the social mix’) why the highest cost areas of the capital will be better off with them living there?

    The usual arguments are to do with there not being any workers to service the rich, if zone 1 subsidised housing from social landlords ends, but surely that housing susidy just allows companies t pay a lower wage.

    Either way, I’ve worked with housing associations in the middle of London who do all they can to avoid seeing a 10m chelsea townhouse they own, which would fund the building of dozens of new homes a few miles down the road, all in the name of social diversity.

  12. Coupla points.
    The old inhabitants of the East End happily relocated to Essex, Golders Green, etc. No one shrieked about social cleansing then.

    It still looks like free school meals are clustered in inner inner London. FSM may be a poor proxy for “forced migration” (or moving house as we used to call it). Maybe the same people are there, but richer. I’d be more worried about the correlation between shit schools and these inner London boroughs.

  13. Fabulous re-wanking of Adam Smith land value theory.There’s old Smith in his silly way saying rising land values should be taxed to stop the stagnation that results from prices of residential and commercial property inflating.And we all know now that this entirely wrong: if rising land values make productive activity impossible, its the productive class that must be expelled from the system.
    Do you lot believe this is “economic competence”; that things are getting much better?

  14. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Looks like he’s still at the sauce. “And ‘nother thing, right? You bastards, allthebloodysame, never listen to me or, or, or Adam wossname, Smith, yeah Smith. Land value tax, thatstheticket hic, yeah,…”

  15. bloke (not) in spain

    Don’t dismiss our friend DBC, too lightly. He does have a point.
    The endgame of what’s happening is areas where there’s nothing but the wealthy. But even the wealthy need services provided by the less than wealthy. And the less than wealthy need somewhere to live.
    And places that are nothing but the rich, expensive restaurants & a smattering of frock shops & hairdressers are very vulnerable. Economy changes, there’s less need for bankers & lawyers – could happen, has happened before – and they’re not viable.
    But his usual solution of taxation is bollocks. The answer most non-UK cities have to increasing land costs is to raise the utility of the land. Build higher. Not the UK, of course, with its love affair with Victorian jerry-building. Can’t change nuffin’ can we?

  16. Weren’t the London riots blamed on the poor living cheek-by-jowl with the rich, the humiliation of inequality being rubbed in their faces on a daily basis provoking an inevitable violent backlash? You’d think the Guardian would welcome this solution. No more riots.

  17. It’s just not fair as Obama tells us & he’s doing something about it. HUD has it’s marching orders to distribute the poorest throughout the richest neighborhoods. See, government can solve anything with the stroke of a pen.

  18. BniS,

    That’s an endgame, but I see no reason to assume that complete ghettoisation will happen. Even if it did, there’s still transport links- and low earners working in the wealthy enclaves wages would rise to cover the transport overhead, as opposed to the taxpayer subsidising the whole shooting match directly.

  19. @ DBC Reed
    Nobody wants the productive class expelled from London, however one defines productive (and I think if you define female lawyers paid £1m a year as “productive”, then the cooks, cleaners and nannies they employ must also be deemed productive).

    However the so-called “social cleansing” by local authorities rehousing unemployed people on the waiting for social housing in houses outside London because there are none spare inside London, cannot (by an honest man) be called expelling the productive classes because it is *offerring* to some non-productive people accommodation outside London (but not forcing them to accept it).

    The “right” like to be correct, the “left” seem to think that correct use of language is not required simply because of the way that the French National Assembly arranged its seating 200+ years ago.

  20. @ Hugh
    “Blamed on”
    Fifty-forty years ago (it took ten years) the Corporation of London built the Barbican Estate (intended as a mixed-income environment but ending up as vastly skewed to the higher end) cheek-by-jowl to some City-owned social housing, a Peabody estate, and some Islington council housing.
    So? Riots? Not that I noticed – I moved there, because commuting was threatening to literally kill me, about ten years after the first flats were inhabited. The Silver Jubilee street parties embraced the whole community, with no distinctions. Admittedly the poor parishoners wore their best suits to church, so the new additions followed suit and the casual observer could not tell which was which. There was no shop on the estate so I relied on the shopkeepers in Whitecross Street who provided, totally gratis from goodwill avuncular advice on how to cook and good recipes: is that the response of someone who wants to riot against your higher income.

    There may have been some shits, but the only complaint *I* ever heard was about Arthur Scargill, who was provided with a luxury three- or four- bedroom flat in Shakespeare Tower by the NUM and treated the Tower staff like dirt.

  21. If there is a shortage of cooks, cleaners, and nannies then the employers will have to pay more. Or, they could provide subsidised housing by having live-in staff as was once the norm. There is a market solution to this.
    Personally I am one of those in the middle of the egg-timer. Thirty years ago I bough my tiny WC1 flat for little more than twice my then no more than average salary. A couple of fat bonus years excepted it has never been more than that. The property meanwhile has risen twelvefold. It’s my pension: it will buy me a nice place in the country and a lump sum beside. The buyer will almost certainly be a BTL investor or just possibly looking for a pied-a-terre: anybody who can afford to buy here can well afford to live elsewhere.
    But that is life: this was briefly a fashionable suburb, until the coming of the railways moved the boundaries outward. Now it is reviving. Thirty years ago the City of a weekend was a ghost town, now it is once again residential. These are natural cycles, which social housing only hampers and distorts.

  22. Mr Ecks:
    You refer to Jeremy Corbyn as Corbyn(e). I miss the significance of the “(e)” – could you explain?

    Cheers,

    Dean

  23. @ ukliberty
    I really, really, do not think that *Quip* is part of the problem. He is living in a small flat near his work so he is part of the solution. When he retires he will vacate the flat and move to a cheaper location so it will be available to another worker.
    NO WAY is he a problem. If, when he retires, it is bought as a pioed-a-terre by someone living outside London most of the time then *that* will be part of the problem, but *he* certainbly is not.
    You are not usually that stupid.

  24. dcardno:

    Corbyn( “KORR-BIN” )-for that is doubtless his name- brings up the mental image of Dusty Bin from the crap old game show with Ted Rodgers. While Dusty’s mental functions were almost certainly on a higher plain than Jezza’s I don’t think such an image does the beardfreak’s socialist evil full justice. Should he ever get the chance I have no doubt he would prove a killer like so many of his leftist brethren.

    Corbyne-(“KORR-BYNE” -rhymes with “Woodbine”) with an “e” -brings up the mental image of a much nastier piece of work ie actor Ronny Cox as Cohaagen in the original and best Total Recall. Since I believe that this is much more akin to the real nature of the marxistic twat that is Corbyn(e) I prefer that spelling.

    Techno-stooge–“The atmosphere is bottoming out in Sector G. What do you want us to do?”

    Corbyn(e) “Don’t do anything”

    T-stooge–“But they’ll die without air”

    Corbyn(e) “Fuck ’em”

    Arnald: “Youf gort wart you warnt Corbyn(e). Gif dose peebull ayre”

    Corbyn(e)-“-My friend– in five minutes you won’t give a shit about the people.”

    Richter” “See you in the Labour party”

  25. part of the problem? Which problem would that be?

    Thirty years ago a bought a flat, one of four in a converted house, in a run down street. I could walk to work; by careful choice of which turn to take at the end of the street I could avoid the red-light district. Four thirty-ish first-time buyers, now I am the last of the owner-occupiers. My ‘accidental landlord’ neighbours returned from working abroad and sold a few months ago, their flat is now back on the market with a coat of paint and a price tag up one-third. I suspect my other long-term neighbours will go soon. Yes, we are all symptoms of that squeezed middle of the egg-timer, but is that our fault? We sell on, we move on, we take the money and run to where we can get better value, maximise our utility if you will.

  26. After being made redundant from a job and being a bit down on my luck I got offered a somewhat decent position in London, but knocked it back – because after working out the numbers I couldn’t afford to relocate my family to London (as a frequent migrant my very supportive wife is totally dependent on me for income, which means I support 4 humans on my wage).

    Yet when eventually choosing to live somewhere cheaper (much further north) on a similar wage, my tax (in the 40% band) was helping to subsidise those who couldn’t afford to live in London.

    It does feel a bit frustrating that not only are some people shielded from the hardships that normal people face all the time – but that the normal people who actually face down the hardships are supposed to subsidise those who won’t even try. Even worse than subsidising such people, is the accusations in the likes of the Guardian that I am actually the problem…

  27. @BiM,

    But they *need* to live in London because reasons. So they get money to live in London.

    You don’t have this *need*, again because reasons.

    After a pointless facebook argument with a public school christian socialist (whose bible must contain a microdot with the expunged verses of Jesus commanding Caesar to feed and house the needy according to an ever-changing definition), I’ve come to the conclusion that it goes no deeper than that. It’s emotional, treating the poor proles as pets, almost. A form of conspicuous compassion for which others (i.e. you) have to pay cos you’ll be damn sure they won’t be personally out of pocket.

  28. I think that’s a good point abacab. The people who object to poor people following middle income people out of London for a better life aren’t objecting out of compassion. Life is happier out of London anyway, as surveys have 9 of the 10 least happy councils in London ( exception Dudley ). They object to show their status as good people.

  29. @abacab

    or those who have grown up in privilege with parents who funded their Oxbridge education – and now they feel a bit guilty about it all, Tony Benn style;

    **my life was so easy because of unfairness, so I must go all super-activist in order to help others – which invariably includes taking from those who actually helped themselves, and giving to those who really like living 5 doors down from their mum in central London, but can’t really afford to**

Leave a Reply

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