I'm in East Ham and I'm happy not to call a spade a garden implement.
I've lived here with Mrs Stodge for 20 years and it's worse now than it was. Now, I could just sit here and blame the migrants so I will. The original Poles, Latvians and Lithuanians who came to East Ham after Freedom of Movement have mostly moved on - the original food shops they set up have all closed (Lithuanica is probably the last) and we now have the Romanians who dominate the shops in what could be called "Little Bucharest".
The other reason it's worse is Mayor Roksana Fiaz who has been a disaster for the Borough. Sir Robin Wales, the previous Council leader and Blairite, did a good job and on many measures Newham was a decent place in the 2000s and early 2010s. Yes, there were problems but the services were reliable, the streets well maintained and the Council responsive.
Under Fiaz, and I understand there are money issues from housing, it's all gone downhill and it's no surprise the Newham Independents are making headway on local anger with how the Council is run.
And yet...people still want to come and live here - rental accommodation is at a premium and the new tower blocks of flats are snapped up.
Anecdotally and @Leon can comment on this - my friend in Mylor tells me a lot of St Ives properties are for sale. This is not because the owners want to sell them but a way of avoiding paying the double council tax imposed on "second homes". The town is still completely unaffordable for the locals but now has a glut of properties for sale as apparently if you put a property on the market it is exempt from the double council tax (up to £7k in some instances).
If the property doesn’t sell (and while St Ives is nice to visit I would never live there) I wonder if the council will retrospectively charge the £7k.
Also worth saying it was London prices for drinks and food. One pub has a branch in both Falmouth and St Ives and the same set of drinks were £2 more in St Ives.
Also I spent £100+ on 2 evening meals out for 2 and £35 on a lunch where I was the only one eating
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better except unaffordable property prices. But that's the killer.
Ok, that’s fascinating. Genuinely
Why? Why and how is it better?
Public transport is much better. The open walk through style of train carriages have spread to main line - underground and overground. Combined with air conditioning, they are a massive improvement.
COVID smashed the stupid rules on not having outside dining. In a number of places this has got as far as pedestrianising outside groups of restaurants. All that is needed is Lahti L39 to deal with the Deliveroo riders who ignore the pedestrianisations.
The number of sports clubs using the River Thames has massively expanded - canoeing, rowing and sailing.
Many public spaces have been reworked from that semi-desolate state to actual use. I used to work in Shell Centre, in Waterloo. The area was rather desolate, the building wrapping round a fountain that had to be permanently switched off, since wind re-circulation effects chucked all the water out of the fountain...
The area has been completely redeveloped and is a thriving hub. All that needs to finish it off, is the demolition of the South Bank Centre and the dead office block by Waterloo station.
And so on.
Thanks. Interesting! It’s actually quite heartening to hear of good things. I don’t like being down on London. It’s my city and I love it - I just despair sometimes and my pessimism has grown
Whatever the true answer, I sense London property is headed for a huge correction
I would say 'about the same' but hiding a lot of variation.
Central London (the shoplifting hotspot of Camden aside ) is much better - there have been a lot of new developments as mentioned by others and I notice the difference in areas I used to work in 10 years ago, much cleaner, more open public space, people about enjoying themselves. And this was from a starting point that was already good following the tidy-up for the Olympics. Transport is better, roads are less busy, more cycling.
Out in the suburbs though the lack of investment in the public realm is showing - things are just shabbier, very much the case here in Havering - not terrible but clearly worse. Also town centres are mostly worse for the changes affecting everywhere, which Central London is largely shielded from, Croydon is definitely (even) worse than when I last went there in about 2017. Having said that Kingston seemed better recently than when I used to visit more regularly when I still had family there 10-15 years ago.
On property I have been waiting for a correction for most of my adult life and will believe it when I see it (and will welcome it).
Bemusing to see pro-terrorist "protestors" object to being labelled as terrorists themselves, just because they engaged in an act of terrorism.
Peaceful protest doesn't include being violent. Turn violent and that's terrorism, not protest.
Do you think spray painting some RAF jets is terrorism? Do you think coming out to support the spray paiting of RAF jets in terrorism?
I'm starting to get quite concerned about the terrorists over in my local Church of Scotland congregation. Great scones though.
I think violence to further political aims is terrorism, yes.
Don't you?
If your congregation are engaging in violence, then yes they're terrorists, if they're not then what point are you trying to make?
There has to be a moral judgement in there somewhere. Otherwise by your definition you'd have to class the Suffragettes as terrorists. Maybe by strict definition they are but only a zealot would make no distinction between them and Baader-Meinhof
The Suffragettes were definitely terrorists. They called their actions terrorism. Everyone else called their actions terrorism. They even inspired the IRA. It was only after the event that those who had, so to speak, won the war and wrote the history during the inter-war period deliberately downplayed the violence. Then a later generation in the 1960s, 1970s and beyond sought to champion the Suffragettes and claim they above others had won the vote for women, which is a dubious conclusion.
Which makes for an interesting case study in "what is terrorism". Of course, "terrorism" has never had a simple definition. It's always been political.
I can't help thinking one of the White House hawks made Trump watch Top Gun Maverick last week.
This is actually the right way to analyse the Trump presidency. It’s a 24/7 reality tv show with one star.
“What puts me centre-stage, looking tough and fabulous, the world hanging on my every word?”
This is what drives all the decisions. It’s about today and tomorrow so by definition there can be no ‘strategy’, geopolitical, economic, or otherwise. How best to promote the show NOW. The long term is next week. It’s a waste of time looking for rationale beyond this because there isn’t any.
When I said the reason he would bomb Iran was to script a ‘situation room’ episode for the show (with accompanying heroic pics of him sitting there wearing that fucking stupid cap, having given The Order) I was being perfectly serious.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better.
Or at least, lots of areas in London have improved very significantly, while others remain great.
Bermondsey where I lived 13 years ago is so much nicer than it was.
Kings Cross has been transformed. Battersea likewise. Canary Wharf has far more going on than it once did. Stratford also.
Balham, Hackney and other previously up-and-coming areas are much better.
While the sleepier parts like of Richmond, Wimbledon, West Hampstead etc remain very nice.
I struggle to think of any area getting a lot worse. My experience on a daily basis is clearly very different to yours.
The only areas of London I think haven’t improved are Oxford Street (obvious) and Camden - which probably explains why Leon thinks how he does.
All much worse: Oxford street, Fitzrovia, Covent Garden, Soho, Victoria (amazingly, it was already bad), the City (bleakly quiet), Bayswater, Tower Hamlets, parts of Hampstead, Whitechapel, Wapping, Baker Street, parts of Bloomsbury
Also parts of outer London. Somewhere like North Finchley is even sadder than it was
Camden is roughly what it always was. Great wealth next to great grittiness
However many places have improved as you say. From Battersea to Kings X to Shoreditch etc
But really it’s not so much the “improvement” of neighbourhoods (or lack of), it’s the daily quality of life on the streets which has gone down, all over
I'm quite interested in the Palestine Action debate. From the description in the legislation, it's an obvious case of "terrorism" - serious property damage for the purpose of advancing a political cause.
My instinct is that's a bit too broad a definition. But, like any football fan, what I'm really interested in is consistency of application of the law. If Palestine Action (and their wider supporters) are being prosecuted on this basis, why isn't everyone who took part in the Southport riots, and those online who supported them, being similarly banged up on terrorism charges?
Presumably one has a specific objective (free Palestine, get rid of Israel, etc.) while the other is more diffuse (be nasty to non white people) so harder to nail down as a “political” objective vs a personal one
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
London gets better each decade as long as you have money (at the comfortable level, perhaps its got worse for the elite, above my pay grade).
And add Starmer should also be wary of Trump. I don't expect an Iran war to be any more popular in the UK.
Trump is a wanker. Saying one thing then saying the complete opposite thing just to appear to be edgy and newsworthy. He is perfectly capable of dragging the US into a hot war here.
Starmer has tried to be the friend of the wanker, easing him away from the truly stupid - he needs to be very mindful of not following Trump into insanity.
Iran is going to close the Straights of Hormuz. That by definition will lead to open warfare between Iran and the US. We should not get involved - other than working with the likes of Qatar to broker the inevitable climb down and peace deal.
They can’t “close” the straits.
All they can do is attack privately owned ships from other countries using Omani waters to transverse the gulf
Bemusing to see pro-terrorist "protestors" object to being labelled as terrorists themselves, just because they engaged in an act of terrorism.
Peaceful protest doesn't include being violent. Turn violent and that's terrorism, not protest.
Do you think spray painting some RAF jets is terrorism? Do you think coming out to support the spray paiting of RAF jets in terrorism?
I'm starting to get quite concerned about the terrorists over in my local Church of Scotland congregation. Great scones though.
I think violence to further political aims is terrorism, yes.
Don't you?
If your congregation are engaging in violence, then yes they're terrorists, if they're not then what point are you trying to make?
There has to be a moral judgement in there somewhere. Otherwise by your definition you'd have to class the Suffragettes as terrorists. Maybe by strict definition they are but only a zealot would make no distinction between them and Baader-Meinhof
There’s a difference between politically motivated damage of property and violence against people. The former has historically been referred to as sabotage or vandalism, the latter terrorism.
In between there are the cases of violent acts aimed at property that nonetheless carry a high risk of killing or injuring people (as with most IRA mainland bombings).
Can't say I remember too many IRA mainland bombings being exclusively aimed at property.
The 1993 Bishopsgate bombing, the 1996 Manchester bombing and the 1992 Baltic Exchange bombing were the three terrorist attacks in Europe that inflicted the highest financial costs of all time. All were aimed at property, although all did have human casualties (deaths for two of them, no deaths for the Manchester bombing although a large number injured).
Talking of cities and relative niceness, I’m on the direct Eurostar from London to Amsterdam (smart, pretty, thriving, easy to navigate) which stops at Brussels (grey, tatty, uninspiring, no discernible logic in its urban geography).
There are fans of Brussels out there, usually those who have lived there for a bit, but I’m not one of them.
I'm in East Ham and I'm happy not to call a spade a garden implement.
I've lived here with Mrs Stodge for 20 years and it's worse now than it was. Now, I could just sit here and blame the migrants so I will. The original Poles, Latvians and Lithuanians who came to East Ham after Freedom of Movement have mostly moved on - the original food shops they set up have all closed (Lithuanica is probably the last) and we now have the Romanians who dominate the shops in what could be called "Little Bucharest".
The other reason it's worse is Mayor Roksana Fiaz who has been a disaster for the Borough. Sir Robin Wales, the previous Council leader and Blairite, did a good job and on many measures Newham was a decent place in the 2000s and early 2010s. Yes, there were problems but the services were reliable, the streets well maintained and the Council responsive.
Under Fiaz, and I understand there are money issues from housing, it's all gone downhill and it's no surprise the Newham Independents are making headway on local anger with how the Council is run.
And yet...people still want to come and live here - rental accommodation is at a premium and the new tower blocks of flats are snapped up.
Anecdotally and @Leon can comment on this - my friend in Mylor tells me a lot of St Ives properties are for sale. This is not because the owners want to sell them but a way of avoiding paying the double council tax imposed on "second homes". The town is still completely unaffordable for the locals but now has a glut of properties for sale as apparently if you put a property on the market it is exempt from the double council tax (up to £7k in some instances).
If the property doesn’t sell (and while St Ives is nice to visit I would never live there) I wonder if the council will retrospectively charge the £7k.
Also worth saying it was London prices for drinks and food. One pub has a branch in both Falmouth and St Ives and the same set of drinks were £2 more in St Ives.
Also I spent £100+ on 2 evening meals out for 2 and £35 on a lunch where I was the only one eating
Twenty years ago Mrs C had relatives in West Cornwall who were 'getting on'.... both in their 90's. One died and the other decided to live in some sort of supported accommodation, so we asked a local estate agent for a valuation on the current accommodation, an elderly caravan on an otherwise holiday site. The agent quoted £40k+! I was horrified and asked the agent how young locals managed. Well spoken young chap, almost certainly not 'local' shrugged his shoulders and said "They don't; live with family. Or move away!"
@haynesdeborah Has the UK ever seemed so irrelevant in an international crisis? Genuine question... The government isn't even able to say publicly if it is for or against the US strikes on Iran Defence minister @LukePollard dodged the question despite being asked 4 times by @WilfredFrost
Q: Is our government pleased or disappointed that the US took this action (to attack Iran)? A: It is not for me to comment on the particular US action
Why is that a problem?
We may like the outcome of the US actions, but us speaking up will achieve nothing so why use the diplomatic capital?
Rule no 1 never accept the first quote from any insurer about anything. If they drop.the price to keep.you then they were ripping you off with the first quote.
Which, as a company in a free market, is pretty much their duty. For the market to work, the seller has got to pitch for as much as they think they can get away with and the buyer as little as possible. Then they are meant to haggle to get to something both sides are happy with.
But yes, it's a hassle, for some a very disagreeable hassle. I'd much rather not bother, and would happily pay quite a bit more to not do so.
(See also, utility contracts and salaries. High pay is often more about willingness to demand it as any intrinsic worth of the job or brilliance at it.)
The best compliment I ever received from a client was “you were very expensive but well worth it”.
I love history and reading about history. I've just started Dominic Sandbrook's "Who dares wins", about the history of Britain in the years 1979-1982 (essentially Maggie's first three years). Its starts with a stark depiction of the UK in terminal decline - nothing works, the nation is getting poorer, hotels are terrible, with rude staff and poor service (Fawlty Tower's is regarded as not that far from reality) and so on. Strikingly it records the New York Times laying into the UK from afar.
Its all so strikingly reminiscent of current times. What's interesting is when you move beyond the doomsayers, as Sandbrook does, it wasn't actually that bad. Were people better off in 1980 than in 1960? Undoubtedly. They had better houses, central heating, TV's , more stuff in general. And yet the air of decline was all around. Sandbrook points out that the real mallaise for Britain was that it was the first major industrial economy to start to move away from the traditional industries (coal, steel etc) to services, and so it looked like the 'sick man of Europe' mainly because it was the first country to undergo this process, not through an inherent problem.
The opening chapter resonates with me. We have so many people claiming national decline, and saying how awful it is, when at the same time arguably life ahs never been better for most people. Who among you would rather be living in the 80's again? Really?
One wonders what the future will bring. AI is clearly a challenge to many ways of earning a living. How far can it go? Will there be jobs in the future? How then does a society allocate wealth? How do you generate wealth?
Lots of questions, few answers. One thing I will add - interest in studying at University doesn't seem to be declining - we have seen record interest at our recent two Open Days. The University apocalypse has not yet started.
Bemusing to see pro-terrorist "protestors" object to being labelled as terrorists themselves, just because they engaged in an act of terrorism.
Peaceful protest doesn't include being violent. Turn violent and that's terrorism, not protest.
Do you think spray painting some RAF jets is terrorism? Do you think coming out to support the spray paiting of RAF jets in terrorism?
I'm starting to get quite concerned about the terrorists over in my local Church of Scotland congregation. Great scones though.
I think violence to further political aims is terrorism, yes.
Don't you?
If your congregation are engaging in violence, then yes they're terrorists, if they're not then what point are you trying to make?
There has to be a moral judgement in there somewhere. Otherwise by your definition you'd have to class the Suffragettes as terrorists. Maybe by strict definition they are but only a zealot would make no distinction between them and Baader-Meinhof
Like all one-word summaries, "terrorism" covers a multitude of sins, from massive to trivial. I think most people think of the more serious cases involving deaths, injuries and massive disruption. I'm against spray-painting planes, but it's not useful to call it terrorism.
Call it what it is, Crimjnal damage and prosecute accordingly
Although reports I have read said this wasn’t the only issue arising to cause them being proscribed.
After all no one is calling for JSO to be categorised as a terror group.
BTW I hope your recent wedding went well and everyone had a great time.
When you say "no one is calling for JSO to be categorised as a terror group", I presume you are excluding PB commenters!
I love history and reading about history. I've just started Dominic Sandbrook's "Who dares wins", about the history of Britain in the years 1979-1982 (essentially Maggie's first three years). Its starts with a stark depiction of the UK in terminal decline - nothing works, the nation is getting poorer, hotels are terrible, with rude staff and poor service (Fawlty Tower's is regarded as not that far from reality) and so on. Strikingly it records the New York Times laying into the UK from afar.
Its all so strikingly reminiscent of current times. What's interesting is when you move beyond the doomsayers, as Sandbrook does, it wasn't actually that bad. Were people better off in 1980 than in 1960? Undoubtedly. They had better houses, central heating, TV's , more stuff in general. And yet the air of decline was all around. Sandbrook points out that the real mallaise for Britain was that it was the first major industrial economy to start to move away from the traditional industries (coal, steel etc) to services, and so it looked like the 'sick man of Europe' mainly because it was the first country to undergo this process, not through an inherent problem.
The opening chapter resonates with me. We have so many people claiming national decline, and saying how awful it is, when at the same time arguably life ahs never been better for most people. Who among you would rather be living in the 80's again? Really?
One wonders what the future will bring. AI is clearly a challenge to many ways of earning a living. How far can it go? Will there be jobs in the future? How then does a society allocate wealth? How do you generate wealth?
Lots of questions, few answers. One thing I will add - interest in studying at University doesn't seem to be declining - we have seen record interest at our recent two Open Days. The University apocalypse has not yet started.
I think life was better in the 80s in some respects, not all.
And add Starmer should also be wary of Trump. I don't expect an Iran war to be any more popular in the UK.
Trump is a wanker. Saying one thing then saying the complete opposite thing just to appear to be edgy and newsworthy. He is perfectly capable of dragging the US into a hot war here.
Starmer has tried to be the friend of the wanker, easing him away from the truly stupid - he needs to be very mindful of not following Trump into insanity.
Iran is going to close the Straights of Hormuz. That by definition will lead to open warfare between Iran and the US. We should not get involved - other than working with the likes of Qatar to broker the inevitable climb down and peace deal.
They can’t “close” the straits.
All they can do is attack privately owned ships from other countries using Omani waters to transverse the gulf
That would effectively close them. The Huthis did the same for the Suez Canal - so much shipping simply didn't take the risk and took the longer route round Africa.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better.
Or at least, lots of areas in London have improved very significantly, while others remain great.
Bermondsey where I lived 13 years ago is so much nicer than it was.
Kings Cross has been transformed. Battersea likewise. Canary Wharf has far more going on than it once did. Stratford also.
Balham, Hackney and other previously up-and-coming areas are much better.
While the sleepier parts like of Richmond, Wimbledon, West Hampstead etc remain very nice.
I struggle to think of any area getting a lot worse. My experience on a daily basis is clearly very different to yours.
The only areas of London I think haven’t improved are Oxford Street (obvious) and Camden - which probably explains why Leon thinks how he does.
All much worse: Oxford street, Fitzrovia, Covent Garden, Soho, Victoria (amazingly, it was already bad), the City (bleakly quiet), Bayswater, Tower Hamlets, parts of Hampstead, Whitechapel, Wapping, Baker Street, parts of Bloomsbury
Also parts of outer London. Somewhere like North Finchley is even sadder than it was
Camden is roughly what it always was. Great wealth next to great grittiness
However many places have improved as you say. From Battersea to Kings X to Shoreditch etc
But really it’s not so much the “improvement” of neighbourhoods (or lack of), it’s the daily quality of life on the streets which has gone down, all over
Trouble is that the creeping grot is what we've voted for. We expect councils to do stuff on the cheap, we then expect then to provide social care, and then get cross when public spaces gradually become rubbish.
On top of that, the sort of centres that justified themselves by shopping (Romford, say) have largely become obsolete and we don't really want to admit the need to start again.
I love history and reading about history. I've just started Dominic Sandbrook's "Who dares wins", about the history of Britain in the years 1979-1982 (essentially Maggie's first three years). Its starts with a stark depiction of the UK in terminal decline - nothing works, the nation is getting poorer, hotels are terrible, with rude staff and poor service (Fawlty Tower's is regarded as not that far from reality) and so on. Strikingly it records the New York Times laying into the UK from afar.
Its all so strikingly reminiscent of current times. What's interesting is when you move beyond the doomsayers, as Sandbrook does, it wasn't actually that bad. Were people better off in 1980 than in 1960? Undoubtedly. They had better houses, central heating, TV's , more stuff in general. And yet the air of decline was all around. Sandbrook points out that the real mallaise for Britain was that it was the first major industrial economy to start to move away from the traditional industries (coal, steel etc) to services, and so it looked like the 'sick man of Europe' mainly because it was the first country to undergo this process, not through an inherent problem.
The opening chapter resonates with me. We have so many people claiming national decline, and saying how awful it is, when at the same time arguably life ahs never been better for most people. Who among you would rather be living in the 80's again? Really?
One wonders what the future will bring. AI is clearly a challenge to many ways of earning a living. How far can it go? Will there be jobs in the future? How then does a society allocate wealth? How do you generate wealth?
Lots of questions, few answers. One thing I will add - interest in studying at University doesn't seem to be declining - we have seen record interest at our recent two Open Days. The University apocalypse has not yet started.
I think life was better in the 80s in some respects, not all.
70's, apart from the Winter of Discontent, were better than now, as were the early 80's. Not personally, especially later, but that was due to my poor decision making.
I can't help thinking one of the White House hawks made Trump watch Top Gun Maverick last week.
This is actually the right way to analyse the Trump presidency. It’s a 24/7 reality tv show with one star.
“What puts me centre-stage, looking tough and fabulous, the world hanging on my every word?”
This is what drives all the decisions. It’s about today and tomorrow so by definition there can be no ‘strategy’, geopolitical, economic, or otherwise. How best to promote the show NOW. The long term is next week. It’s a waste of time looking for rationale beyond this because there isn’t any.
When I said the reason he would bomb Iran was to script a ‘situation room’ episode for the show (with accompanying heroic pics of him sitting there wearing that fucking stupid cap, having given The Order) I was being perfectly serious.
I agree. All the more reason for UK government spokespeople not to comment until it becomes clear where the national interest lies in any given situation.
I love history and reading about history. I've just started Dominic Sandbrook's "Who dares wins", about the history of Britain in the years 1979-1982 (essentially Maggie's first three years). Its starts with a stark depiction of the UK in terminal decline - nothing works, the nation is getting poorer, hotels are terrible, with rude staff and poor service (Fawlty Tower's is regarded as not that far from reality) and so on. Strikingly it records the New York Times laying into the UK from afar.
Its all so strikingly reminiscent of current times. What's interesting is when you move beyond the doomsayers, as Sandbrook does, it wasn't actually that bad. Were people better off in 1980 than in 1960? Undoubtedly. They had better houses, central heating, TV's , more stuff in general. And yet the air of decline was all around. Sandbrook points out that the real mallaise for Britain was that it was the first major industrial economy to start to move away from the traditional industries (coal, steel etc) to services, and so it looked like the 'sick man of Europe' mainly because it was the first country to undergo this process, not through an inherent problem.
The opening chapter resonates with me. We have so many people claiming national decline, and saying how awful it is, when at the same time arguably life ahs never been better for most people. Who among you would rather be living in the 80's again? Really?
One wonders what the future will bring. AI is clearly a challenge to many ways of earning a living. How far can it go? Will there be jobs in the future? How then does a society allocate wealth? How do you generate wealth?
Lots of questions, few answers. One thing I will add - interest in studying at University doesn't seem to be declining - we have seen record interest at our recent two Open Days. The University apocalypse has not yet started.
I think life was better in the 80s in some respects, not all.
In the respect that I was 15 in 1989 it was infinitely better
Good morning. The weather looks a bit changeable today but the garden is enjoying the mix of sun and rain.
I'm about to the do the annual charade of negotiating my car insurance down to a reasonable price. Last year I knocked £300 off by fabricating a quote from another provider - my 6 years of loyalty means nothing, apparently.
It's a tax on those without the time or wherewithal to challenge their renewal prices.
£248 this year for me, which was lower than last year. This insurer shows my full 19 years NCD too which I like rather than just the 9+ Churchill did.
£248? What the fuck are you driving? A P-reg Saxo?
I've just done mine. Got done up the wrong 'un to the tune of 4 grand and that's with SORNing two cars.
So you'd have been better off investing in Fredos.
That's the direction we need London prices to be going.
It's a pity it isn't falling behind faster.
Houses should be homes not investments.
The ideal situation for housing is a soft landing like we’ve seen - real terms decreases but headline increases. That way we avoid negative equity, lenders will continue lending, but houses become relatively affordable over time.
London property is relatively cheaper than 2015, but to take advantage you need to be able to purchase around ! 84% ! of the property outright without a mortgage comparing 2015 and 2025. So for most people the *cost* has gone up in real terms.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better except unaffordable property prices. But that's the killer.
Ok, that’s fascinating. Genuinely
Why? Why and how is it better?
Public transport is much better. The open walk through style of train carriages have spread to main line - underground and overground. Combined with air conditioning, they are a massive improvement.
COVID smashed the stupid rules on not having outside dining. In a number of places this has got as far as pedestrianising outside groups of restaurants. All that is needed is Lahti L39 to deal with the Deliveroo riders who ignore the pedestrianisations.
The number of sports clubs using the River Thames has massively expanded - canoeing, rowing and sailing.
Many public spaces have been reworked from that semi-desolate state to actual use. I used to work in Shell Centre, in Waterloo. The area was rather desolate, the building wrapping round a fountain that had to be permanently switched off, since wind re-circulation effects chucked all the water out of the fountain...
The area has been completely redeveloped and is a thriving hub. All that needs to finish it off, is the demolition of the South Bank Centre and the dead office block by Waterloo station.
And so on.
I would posit that prime central London has probably stagnated a little or got a tad tattier, while the inner city ring around it (South Bank as you say, Canary Wharf, Bermondsey, Hackney and Shoreditch etc) has improved considerably.
I don’t know NW1 well enough to judge, but certainly the tourist heartland of the West End could do with a makeover in places. Starting with the logistically almost impossible but potentially transformative pedestrianising of Oxford Street and the kicking out of the crap tat-purveying shops.
I agree on pedestrianising Oxford Street. It’s been declining for a decade or more and it obviously needs a huge jolt
This could be it. They should turn the entire street into open air dining, al fresco bars, shisha places. It could be epic
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
"And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him."
That's probably because of the people you associate with. They're either other right-wing nutcases, or sane people who just nod politely as they think: "who is this ranting nutter? I'd better just agree..."
That's a thing about conversations: they can be directed quite easily, especially if people have not got firm views on the matter.
I live in NW1. Have you ever been to NW1, or indeed north London? Most of my friends in London are left wing - yet they all feel the city has gone down hill
My kids think this. Everyone thinks this
Which handily shows the problem is you.
Believing that some things about London haven't got worse recently is a faith. It's not based on real life.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better.
Or at least, lots of areas in London have improved very significantly, while others remain great.
Bermondsey where I lived 13 years ago is so much nicer than it was.
Kings Cross has been transformed. Battersea likewise. Canary Wharf has far more going on than it once did. Stratford also.
Balham, Hackney and other previously up-and-coming areas are much better.
While the sleepier parts like of Richmond, Wimbledon, West Hampstead etc remain very nice.
I struggle to think of any area getting a lot worse. My experience on a daily basis is clearly very different to yours.
West Ealing is becoming increasingly run down, with lots of empty shops. It used to have WHSmith, Marks and Spencer, Woolworths, British Home Stores, McDonald's, Pizza Hut, KFC, most of the banks, now gone. There is a new larger branch of Lidl that opened this year, however.
As far as I can see oil prices have failed to react to the Iran War developments over the weekend. So the market either believes that Iran won't try to close the Strait of Hormuz, will be unable to do so, or that there is enough capacity elsewhere to make up the difference.
Any other explanations?
I would have thought that, even if the market thought there was only a 20% chance of closure, that would command a hefty risk premium on the current price. So, is this just market complacency, or am I missing something big?
Sky reporting little reaction in the markets this morning, so maybe Iran will sabre rattle but not cause too much escalation
The oil-producing non-friends of Iran have every incentive to increase oil output if the Strait of Hormuz gets blocked, so no, there shouldn't be a serious spike in the oil price, much to VVP's chagrin
In the short term, oil demand is pretty price inelastic. If you removed Saudi, Kuwaiti and UAE oil exports, Qatari synthetic oil, as well as LNG cargoes, it would likely have a pretty severe impact on prices. In fact, I'd reckon that - just as with the severing of Russian gas exports to Europe - it would impact energy prices for everyone, everywhere.
And don't forget, there's usually only a limited amount that most oil fields can do to increase production in the short term.
In the medium term, high oil prices would spur tight production in the Permian. And longer term, high oil prices make new oil fields more economic. But short term... missing barrels from the Middle East would need to be compensated for by either lower consumption or (in the US at least) drawing down on the strategic oil reserve.
There are other routes out for quite a lot of that production, though.
And 'blocking the strait' for more than a fairly short time is (probably) beyond Iran's capacity.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better.
Or at least, lots of areas in London have improved very significantly, while others remain great.
Bermondsey where I lived 13 years ago is so much nicer than it was.
Kings Cross has been transformed. Battersea likewise. Canary Wharf has far more going on than it once did. Stratford also.
Balham, Hackney and other previously up-and-coming areas are much better.
While the sleepier parts like of Richmond, Wimbledon, West Hampstead etc remain very nice.
I struggle to think of any area getting a lot worse. My experience on a daily basis is clearly very different to yours.
The only areas of London I think haven’t improved are Oxford Street (obvious) and Camden - which probably explains why Leon thinks how he does.
I would argue that the area of Central London where my apartment is (Shaftesbury Avenue) has gotten worse. We're right by Forbidden Planet, and the number of homeless drug addicts on the street has dramatically increased in the post Covid period.
That said, you are spot on about areas like Dalston and Shoreditch. They were shitholes 20 years ago, were gentrifying a decade ago, and are now very nice indeed.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
I remember Elephant and Castle being universally derided as an utter hell hole back in the day. But a friend of mine moved there a couple of years ago and I couldn't believe how swish a lot of that area now is.
Bemusing to see pro-terrorist "protestors" object to being labelled as terrorists themselves, just because they engaged in an act of terrorism.
Peaceful protest doesn't include being violent. Turn violent and that's terrorism, not protest.
Do you think spray painting some RAF jets is terrorism? Do you think coming out to support the spray paiting of RAF jets in terrorism?
I'm starting to get quite concerned about the terrorists over in my local Church of Scotland congregation. Great scones though.
I think violence to further political aims is terrorism, yes.
Don't you?
If your congregation are engaging in violence, then yes they're terrorists, if they're not then what point are you trying to make?
There has to be a moral judgement in there somewhere. Otherwise by your definition you'd have to class the Suffragettes as terrorists. Maybe by strict definition they are but only a zealot would make no distinction between them and Baader-Meinhof
The Suffragettes were definitely terrorists. They called their actions terrorism. Everyone else called their actions terrorism. They even inspired the IRA. It was only after the event that those who had, so to speak, won the war and wrote the history during the inter-war period deliberately downplayed the violence. Then a later generation in the 1960s, 1970s and beyond sought to champion the Suffragettes and claim they above others had won the vote for women, which is a dubious conclusion.
Which makes for an interesting case study in "what is terrorism". Of course, "terrorism" has never had a simple definition. It's always been political.
Of course. And different jurisdictions have different definitions - just as different countries have different popular understanding of what constitutes terrorism, which doesn't always coincide with their laws.
Air quality in London, now the EU diesel years are over, is much better. 20% of cars are electric. No brown haze over the city when it is hot.
I remember the Great Fog of 1957 Even in South Essex it was grimy.
When I was briefly an Essex lad in the very early 2000s I was driving back towards Chelmsford from a meeting in Harlow via the A414. The most pea soupiest pea soup I've driven in. I literally sat on the arse of a lorry in front doing about 15mph and guessing where we might be.
Edit - apropos of nothing I guess but its my Essex fog story lol
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better.
Or at least, lots of areas in London have improved very significantly, while others remain great.
Bermondsey where I lived 13 years ago is so much nicer than it was.
Kings Cross has been transformed. Battersea likewise. Canary Wharf has far more going on than it once did. Stratford also.
Balham, Hackney and other previously up-and-coming areas are much better.
While the sleepier parts like of Richmond, Wimbledon, West Hampstead etc remain very nice.
I struggle to think of any area getting a lot worse. My experience on a daily basis is clearly very different to yours.
West Ealing is becoming increasingly run down, with lots of empty shops. It used to have WHSmith, Marks and Spencer, Woolworths, British Home Stores, McDonald's, Pizza Hut, KFC, most of the banks, now gone. There is a new larger branch of Lidl that opened this year, however.
Fair enough. I am sure some places have got worse as others have improved. The trick is learning from those who have trended in the right direction.
Funnily enough I was in Walpole Park in Ealing yesterday, but didn't venture further.
I love history and reading about history. I've just started Dominic Sandbrook's "Who dares wins", about the history of Britain in the years 1979-1982 (essentially Maggie's first three years). Its starts with a stark depiction of the UK in terminal decline - nothing works, the nation is getting poorer, hotels are terrible, with rude staff and poor service (Fawlty Tower's is regarded as not that far from reality) and so on. Strikingly it records the New York Times laying into the UK from afar.
Its all so strikingly reminiscent of current times. What's interesting is when you move beyond the doomsayers, as Sandbrook does, it wasn't actually that bad. Were people better off in 1980 than in 1960? Undoubtedly. They had better houses, central heating, TV's , more stuff in general. And yet the air of decline was all around. Sandbrook points out that the real mallaise for Britain was that it was the first major industrial economy to start to move away from the traditional industries (coal, steel etc) to services, and so it looked like the 'sick man of Europe' mainly because it was the first country to undergo this process, not through an inherent problem.
The opening chapter resonates with me. We have so many people claiming national decline, and saying how awful it is, when at the same time arguably life ahs never been better for most people. Who among you would rather be living in the 80's again? Really?
One wonders what the future will bring. AI is clearly a challenge to many ways of earning a living. How far can it go? Will there be jobs in the future? How then does a society allocate wealth? How do you generate wealth?
Lots of questions, few answers. One thing I will add - interest in studying at University doesn't seem to be declining - we have seen record interest at our recent two Open Days. The University apocalypse has not yet started.
It will. If you think about it, it is inevitable
Some big wig in the Spectator is predicting that 80% of universities will shut within 10 years. That seems hyperbolic to me, but the direction is clear
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better.
Or at least, lots of areas in London have improved very significantly, while others remain great.
Bermondsey where I lived 13 years ago is so much nicer than it was.
Kings Cross has been transformed. Battersea likewise. Canary Wharf has far more going on than it once did. Stratford also.
Balham, Hackney and other previously up-and-coming areas are much better.
While the sleepier parts like of Richmond, Wimbledon, West Hampstead etc remain very nice.
I struggle to think of any area getting a lot worse. My experience on a daily basis is clearly very different to yours.
The only areas of London I think haven’t improved are Oxford Street (obvious) and Camden - which probably explains why Leon thinks how he does.
All much worse: Oxford street, Fitzrovia, Covent Garden, Soho, Victoria (amazingly, it was already bad), the City (bleakly quiet), Bayswater, Tower Hamlets, parts of Hampstead, Whitechapel, Wapping, Baker Street, parts of Bloomsbury
Also parts of outer London. Somewhere like North Finchley is even sadder than it was
Camden is roughly what it always was. Great wealth next to great grittiness
However many places have improved as you say. From Battersea to Kings X to Shoreditch etc
But really it’s not so much the “improvement” of neighbourhoods (or lack of), it’s the daily quality of life on the streets which has gone down, all over
I moved into Fitzrovia (Bolsover Street) in 2003, and it's much nicer now. When we moved in, friends of my wife got mugged in Fitzroy Street in broad daylight. And we looked at each other and thought... why did we move here? At the time, restaurants didn't stay open. They'd launch, fail to get custom and then shut down. The houses opposite my apartment block were deserted and falling to pieces. It looked like a shit hole.
Now with all the new housing developments, it's massively nicer, and with great restaurants
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
I remember Elephant and Castle being universally derided as an utter hell hole back in the day. But a friend of mine moved there a couple of years ago and I couldn't believe how swish a lot of that area now is.
So, a concentric doughnut pattern. Hyper-central London tattier and suffering from reduced footfall since Covid. The inner city ring, particularly in previously deprived areas of the East and South, notably improved and probably also the biggest beneficiary of cleaner air. Then the outer suburbs and satellite towns suffering the same retail stagnation as towns across the rest of the country, with a few bright spots in well connected burbs that have gained outflows from the centre.
Then SW London along the Thames just leafily the same as it’s always been.
If you think London has gone down the tubes, go and check out provincial towns outside the South East....it is the open door that Farage is pushing on.
Air quality in London, now the EU diesel years are over, is much better. 20% of cars are electric. No brown haze over the city when it is hot.
I remember the Great Fog of 1957 Even in South Essex it was grimy.
How many did that kill ?
Back in the 60s in the industrial West Riding, I was not altogether infrequently late for school when dense yellow fog reduced car speeds to about 15mph.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
This is not just a London thing. Paris is seriously on the decline - shabbier, less safe for women. Etc
Indeed most really big western cities have a declining quality of life. Perversely this is maybe why so many Brits and westerners don’t notice it
They rarely travel outside Western Europe/USA to see how different things can be. How much better. You DON’T have to walk around constantly scared your phone will be snatched
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better.
Or at least, lots of areas in London have improved very significantly, while others remain great.
Bermondsey where I lived 13 years ago is so much nicer than it was.
Kings Cross has been transformed. Battersea likewise. Canary Wharf has far more going on than it once did. Stratford also.
Balham, Hackney and other previously up-and-coming areas are much better.
While the sleepier parts like of Richmond, Wimbledon, West Hampstead etc remain very nice.
I struggle to think of any area getting a lot worse. My experience on a daily basis is clearly very different to yours.
The only areas of London I think haven’t improved are Oxford Street (obvious) and Camden - which probably explains why Leon thinks how he does.
All much worse: Oxford street, Fitzrovia, Covent Garden, Soho, Victoria (amazingly, it was already bad), the City (bleakly quiet), Bayswater, Tower Hamlets, parts of Hampstead, Whitechapel, Wapping, Baker Street, parts of Bloomsbury
Also parts of outer London. Somewhere like North Finchley is even sadder than it was
Camden is roughly what it always was. Great wealth next to great grittiness
However many places have improved as you say. From Battersea to Kings X to Shoreditch etc
But really it’s not so much the “improvement” of neighbourhoods (or lack of), it’s the daily quality of life on the streets which has gone down, all over
I moved into Fitzrovia (Bolsover Street) in 2003, and it's much nicer now. When we moved in, friends of my wife got mugged in Fitzroy Street in broad daylight. And we looked at each other and thought... why did we move here? At the time, restaurants didn't stay open. They'd launch, fail to get custom and then shut down. The houses opposite my apartment block were deserted and falling to pieces. It looked like a shit hole.
Now with all the new housing developments, it's massively nicer, and with great restaurants
My daughter is at UCL - the improvement in Bloomsbury etc noticeable. but it's a bit patchy. There's still a fair bit of poorly maintained property but it's being worked through. A lot of areas have gone from "just no" in my day to "perfectly fine"
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better.
Or at least, lots of areas in London have improved very significantly, while others remain great.
Bermondsey where I lived 13 years ago is so much nicer than it was.
Kings Cross has been transformed. Battersea likewise. Canary Wharf has far more going on than it once did. Stratford also.
Balham, Hackney and other previously up-and-coming areas are much better.
While the sleepier parts like of Richmond, Wimbledon, West Hampstead etc remain very nice.
I struggle to think of any area getting a lot worse. My experience on a daily basis is clearly very different to yours.
The only areas of London I think haven’t improved are Oxford Street (obvious) and Camden - which probably explains why Leon thinks how he does.
I would argue that the area of Central London where my apartment is (Shaftesbury Avenue) has gotten worse. We're right by Forbidden Planet, and the number of homeless drug addicts on the street has dramatically increased in the post Covid period.
That said, you are spot on about areas like Dalston and Shoreditch. They were shitholes 20 years ago, were gentrifying a decade ago, and are now very nice indeed.
That’s a micro locale issue though as St Giles Court has been rather gentrified and it’s just shifted those people 80 yards or so.
After all my favorite celebrity spot of all time is Stefan Dennis (for it was he off neighbours) by the needle exchange van behind centrepoint.
Edit to add and the surrounding areas now a private to the extent that if the drug addicts appeared in Covent Garden or St Giles they would be rapidly moved on
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better.
Or at least, lots of areas in London have improved very significantly, while others remain great.
Bermondsey where I lived 13 years ago is so much nicer than it was.
Kings Cross has been transformed. Battersea likewise. Canary Wharf has far more going on than it once did. Stratford also.
Balham, Hackney and other previously up-and-coming areas are much better.
While the sleepier parts like of Richmond, Wimbledon, West Hampstead etc remain very nice.
I struggle to think of any area getting a lot worse. My experience on a daily basis is clearly very different to yours.
The only areas of London I think haven’t improved are Oxford Street (obvious) and Camden - which probably explains why Leon thinks how he does.
All much worse: Oxford street, Fitzrovia, Covent Garden, Soho, Victoria (amazingly, it was already bad), the City (bleakly quiet), Bayswater, Tower Hamlets, parts of Hampstead, Whitechapel, Wapping, Baker Street, parts of Bloomsbury
Also parts of outer London. Somewhere like North Finchley is even sadder than it was
Camden is roughly what it always was. Great wealth next to great grittiness
However many places have improved as you say. From Battersea to Kings X to Shoreditch etc
But really it’s not so much the “improvement” of neighbourhoods (or lack of), it’s the daily quality of life on the streets which has gone down, all over
I moved into Fitzrovia (Bolsover Street) is lost 2003, and it's much nicer now. When we moved in, friends of my wife got mugged in Fitzroy Street in broad daylight. And we looked at each other and thought... why did we move here? At the time, restaurants didn't stay open. They'd launch, fail to get custom and then shut down. The houses opposite my apartment block were deserted and falling to pieces. It looked like a shit hole.
Now with all the new housing developments, it's massively nicer, and with great restaurants
Ilford's lost its Waterstones! But we still have a Smiths!
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
I remember Elephant and Castle being universally derided as an utter hell hole back in the day. But a friend of mine moved there a couple of years ago and I couldn't believe how swish a lot of that area now is.
So, a concentric doughnut pattern. Hyper-central London tattier and suffering from reduced footfall since Covid. The inner city ring, particularly in previously deprived areas of the East and South, notably improved and probably also the biggest beneficiary of cleaner air. Then the outer suburbs and satellite towns suffering the same retail stagnation as towns across the rest of the country, with a few bright spots in well connected burbs that have gained outflows from the centre.
Then SW London along the Thames just leading the same as it’s always been.
I went to a gig at the Barbican on Saturday with a friend who used to live around there 20 years before. She remarked how much livelier and safer the area around the Barbican/Farringdon felt. Does that count as "hyper-central London"?
Rule no 1 never accept the first quote from any insurer about anything. If they drop.the price to keep.you then they were ripping you off with the first quote.
Which, as a company in a free market, is pretty much their duty. For the market to work, the seller has got to pitch for as much as they think they can get away with and the buyer as little as possible. Then they are meant to haggle to get to something both sides are happy with.
But yes, it's a hassle, for some a very disagreeable hassle. I'd much rather not bother, and would happily pay quite a bit more to not do so.
(See also, utility contracts and salaries. High pay is often more about willingness to demand it as any intrinsic worth of the job or brilliance at it.)
The best compliment I ever received from a client was “you were very expensive but well worth it”.
Unless we knew what you did/do, there are all sorts of scenarios that this praise could indicate e.g. hit man (and are you available next week?)
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
The cleaner air thing is probably true.
Yes for sure. Also quieter - more EVs, fewer hideous motorbikes roaring away
It’s not all bad by any means. But on the whole is daily urban life worse than 2015 - I’d say yes in terms of cleanliness, graffiti, high streets, nightlife, petty crime (and sexual crime). And that is “life” for most people
Right I’m down in Cornwall and the sun is shining. Time for a coffee at the Gylly cafe by the beach
Mrs PtP and I are thinking of spending a few days there and wondered if you had any experience of it or views you might share. It's a bit pricey but we thought the experience might be worth it.
Be greateful if you could assist.
I certainly know the landmark. Not sure I’d pay loads for it - not because it lacks in stunning views but because Newquay is - let’s be generous - quite a cheap and cheerful seaside resort. It’s not St Mawes or Padstow or even Falmouth
Thanks Leon.
Newquay wouldn't interest us anyway. We'd be going for the views, the dogwalks, and a touch of luxury. It would definitely be off season too.
We'll probably do it. We like your home county, even if some of the locals are a bit strange...(or maybe because they are.)
Cheers
Ignoring the luxury last week I found (and was staying at) a very good farmhouse holiday home in St Ives.
Biggest advantage is that it is countryside - but has a bus from the holiday park next door to St Ives and it’s a £9 taxi ride back
Thanks but St Ives always brings back memories of my first marriage.
I love history and reading about history. I've just started Dominic Sandbrook's "Who dares wins", about the history of Britain in the years 1979-1982 (essentially Maggie's first three years). Its starts with a stark depiction of the UK in terminal decline - nothing works, the nation is getting poorer, hotels are terrible, with rude staff and poor service (Fawlty Tower's is regarded as not that far from reality) and so on. Strikingly it records the New York Times laying into the UK from afar.
Its all so strikingly reminiscent of current times. What's interesting is when you move beyond the doomsayers, as Sandbrook does, it wasn't actually that bad. Were people better off in 1980 than in 1960? Undoubtedly. They had better houses, central heating, TV's , more stuff in general. And yet the air of decline was all around. Sandbrook points out that the real mallaise for Britain was that it was the first major industrial economy to start to move away from the traditional industries (coal, steel etc) to services, and so it looked like the 'sick man of Europe' mainly because it was the first country to undergo this process, not through an inherent problem.
The opening chapter resonates with me. We have so many people claiming national decline, and saying how awful it is, when at the same time arguably life ahs never been better for most people. Who among you would rather be living in the 80's again? Really?
One wonders what the future will bring. AI is clearly a challenge to many ways of earning a living. How far can it go? Will there be jobs in the future? How then does a society allocate wealth? How do you generate wealth?
Lots of questions, few answers. One thing I will add - interest in studying at University doesn't seem to be declining - we have seen record interest at our recent two Open Days. The University apocalypse has not yet started.
It will. If you think about it, it is inevitable
Some big wig in the Spectator is predicting that 80% of universities will shut within 10 years. That seems hyperbolic to me, but the direction is clear
Well, that would release a hell of a lot of modern studio flats onto the market, as good affordable housing. Subject to government changing the regulations to allow non-students to live in places that small.
(Are student flats counted in housebuilding stats? They're too small for normal habitation by law so maybe not...)
This is not just a London thing. Paris is seriously on the decline - shabbier, less safe for women. Etc
Indeed most really big western cities have a declining quality of life. Perversely this is maybe why so many Brits and westerners don’t notice it
They rarely travel outside Western Europe/USA to see how different things can be. How much better. You DON’T have to walk around constantly scared your phone will be snatched
It used to be just the run down areas, but that's horribly bigoted so they decided to make everywhere run down in the interests of equity. Now we can all enjoy the same shit outcomes all the time.
Air quality in London, now the EU diesel years are over, is much better. 20% of cars are electric. No brown haze over the city when it is hot.
I remember the Great Fog of 1957 Even in South Essex it was grimy.
How many did that kill ?
Back in the 60s in the industrial West Riding, I was not altogether infrequently late for school when dense yellow fog reduced car speeds to about 15mph.
I recall a very thick fog when I was managing a pharmacy in Dukinfield, just across the Pennines from the West Riding and getting quite lost trying to get home through Oldham.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better except unaffordable property prices. But that's the killer.
Ok, that’s fascinating. Genuinely
Why? Why and how is it better?
Measurably better air quality, better educational outcomes, probably better transport provision, that I can think of. Crime mixed, but no worse overall, and historically low. Which is the key point. London hasn't gone backwards in any areas that I can think of, is comparatively not too bad in most things except property prices, and has improved in some things.
If you think London has gone down the tubes, go and check out provincial towns outside the South East....it is the open door that Farage is pushing on.
As a provincial northerner, many of the complaints on here are completely alien.
I've never been afraid of using my phone in public, never had it snatched or known anyone who has.
I've not seen any robberies of stores. If I go into Greggs they have products on the shelves and if people pick them up, its to take it to the counter and pay for it, not to put in a bag and run away.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
I remember Elephant and Castle being universally derided as an utter hell hole back in the day. But a friend of mine moved there a couple of years ago and I couldn't believe how swish a lot of that area now is.
So, a concentric doughnut pattern. Hyper-central London tattier and suffering from reduced footfall since Covid. The inner city ring, particularly in previously deprived areas of the East and South, notably improved and probably also the biggest beneficiary of cleaner air. Then the outer suburbs and satellite towns suffering the same retail stagnation as towns across the rest of the country, with a few bright spots in well connected burbs that have gained outflows from the centre.
Then SW London along the Thames just leafily the same as it’s always been.
Air quality in London, now the EU diesel years are over, is much better. 20% of cars are electric. No brown haze over the city when it is hot.
I remember the Great Fog of 1957 Even in South Essex it was grimy.
How many did that kill ?
Back in the 60s in the industrial West Riding, I was not altogether infrequently late for school when dense yellow fog reduced car speeds to about 15mph.
The 1952 Great Smog killed maybe 12000. 1957 was a lot fewer, maybe 750, including 2 from the Lewisham rail crash.
I love history and reading about history. I've just started Dominic Sandbrook's "Who dares wins", about the history of Britain in the years 1979-1982 (essentially Maggie's first three years). Its starts with a stark depiction of the UK in terminal decline - nothing works, the nation is getting poorer, hotels are terrible, with rude staff and poor service (Fawlty Tower's is regarded as not that far from reality) and so on. Strikingly it records the New York Times laying into the UK from afar.
Its all so strikingly reminiscent of current times. What's interesting is when you move beyond the doomsayers, as Sandbrook does, it wasn't actually that bad. Were people better off in 1980 than in 1960? Undoubtedly. They had better houses, central heating, TV's , more stuff in general. And yet the air of decline was all around. Sandbrook points out that the real mallaise for Britain was that it was the first major industrial economy to start to move away from the traditional industries (coal, steel etc) to services, and so it looked like the 'sick man of Europe' mainly because it was the first country to undergo this process, not through an inherent problem.
The opening chapter resonates with me. We have so many people claiming national decline, and saying how awful it is, when at the same time arguably life ahs never been better for most people. Who among you would rather be living in the 80's again? Really?
One wonders what the future will bring. AI is clearly a challenge to many ways of earning a living. How far can it go? Will there be jobs in the future? How then does a society allocate wealth? How do you generate wealth?
Lots of questions, few answers. One thing I will add - interest in studying at University doesn't seem to be declining - we have seen record interest at our recent two Open Days. The University apocalypse has not yet started.
It will. If you think about it, it is inevitable
Some big wig in the Spectator is predicting that 80% of universities will shut within 10 years. That seems hyperbolic to me, but the direction is clear
Its not clear on the ground. Not saying said big wig is wrong, but the message hasn't reached the kids yet,
If you think London has gone down the tubes, go and check out provincial towns outside the South East....it is the open door that Farage is pushing on.
As a provincial northerner, many of the complaints on here are completely alien.
I've never been afraid of using my phone in public, never had it snatched or known anyone who has.
I've not seen any robberies of stores. If I go into Greggs they have products on the shelves and if people pick them up, its to take it to the counter and pay for it, not to put in a bag and run away.
I travel around the UK a lot. Shoplifting is definitely a country wide problem. The e-bike phone snatchers does seem to be more a London thing. Drug dealing has changed with Country lines, and the violence that goes along with that has spread outside of being just a big city thing. Homelessness or at least people who clearly live drug dependent lives hanging around on the streets seems more prevalent.
A big thing is high streets really struggling with massive numbers of empty stores, increasing general shabbiness*, etc, that isn't so prevalent in London / SE.
* except tagging, tagging is bloody everywhere in London.
I love history and reading about history. I've just started Dominic Sandbrook's "Who dares wins", about the history of Britain in the years 1979-1982 (essentially Maggie's first three years). Its starts with a stark depiction of the UK in terminal decline - nothing works, the nation is getting poorer, hotels are terrible, with rude staff and poor service (Fawlty Tower's is regarded as not that far from reality) and so on. Strikingly it records the New York Times laying into the UK from afar.
Its all so strikingly reminiscent of current times. What's interesting is when you move beyond the doomsayers, as Sandbrook does, it wasn't actually that bad. Were people better off in 1980 than in 1960? Undoubtedly. They had better houses, central heating, TV's , more stuff in general. And yet the air of decline was all around. Sandbrook points out that the real mallaise for Britain was that it was the first major industrial economy to start to move away from the traditional industries (coal, steel etc) to services, and so it looked like the 'sick man of Europe' mainly because it was the first country to undergo this process, not through an inherent problem.
The opening chapter resonates with me. We have so many people claiming national decline, and saying how awful it is, when at the same time arguably life ahs never been better for most people. Who among you would rather be living in the 80's again? Really?
One wonders what the future will bring. AI is clearly a challenge to many ways of earning a living. How far can it go? Will there be jobs in the future? How then does a society allocate wealth? How do you generate wealth?
Lots of questions, few answers. One thing I will add - interest in studying at University doesn't seem to be declining - we have seen record interest at our recent two Open Days. The University apocalypse has not yet started.
It will. If you think about it, it is inevitable
Some big wig in the Spectator is predicting that 80% of universities will shut within 10 years. That seems hyperbolic to me, but the direction is clear
Well, that would release a hell of a lot of modern studio flats onto the market, as good affordable housing. Subject to government changing the regulations to allow non-students to live in places that small.
(Are student flats counted in housebuilding stats? They're too small for normal habitation by law so maybe not...)
Chatted with the site surveyor of some student accommodation in West London, a while back. He was pretty open that, when you looked at soil stacks etc, the plan was obviously to build in conversion to "normal" flats. So a few non structural walls go, change the kitchen and bathrooms etc but the building itself is ready for it.
He reckoned that the idea was that the student gentrify the locality, while paying off the original paper on the building. Then covert and sell. And use part of the money to build new student accommodation, not far away, in another dodgy bit.
London might be paradise to you southern softies, but get out of your bubble and head up the M1 and you'll find a different world. Loughborough. Got the university and not much else . Any bit of land/ empty building finds itself turned into student accommodation or bulldozed for student accommodation. The Carillion Shopping Centre has been the focal point of the Town Centre as long as I can remember. It's currently empty, shops having had all their tenancies terminated so the owners can knock it down and build an eight floor student accommodation block, right slap bang in the middle of the town. There's a planning wrangle currently going on. The massive Cineworld has closed and the restaurants and bars that were destined to open in the adjoining development never really happened- fully half the units have been empty since it was completed. Very few shops survive in the town longer than 6 months, unless it's fast food, Turkish barber or nail bar. Even the charity shops are moving out. We have no idea what a museum or art gallery is. Still, the empty shops do give the homeless some doorways to sleep in.
I love history and reading about history. I've just started Dominic Sandbrook's "Who dares wins", about the history of Britain in the years 1979-1982 (essentially Maggie's first three years). Its starts with a stark depiction of the UK in terminal decline - nothing works, the nation is getting poorer, hotels are terrible, with rude staff and poor service (Fawlty Tower's is regarded as not that far from reality) and so on. Strikingly it records the New York Times laying into the UK from afar.
Its all so strikingly reminiscent of current times. What's interesting is when you move beyond the doomsayers, as Sandbrook does, it wasn't actually that bad. Were people better off in 1980 than in 1960? Undoubtedly. They had better houses, central heating, TV's , more stuff in general. And yet the air of decline was all around. Sandbrook points out that the real mallaise for Britain was that it was the first major industrial economy to start to move away from the traditional industries (coal, steel etc) to services, and so it looked like the 'sick man of Europe' mainly because it was the first country to undergo this process, not through an inherent problem.
The opening chapter resonates with me. We have so many people claiming national decline, and saying how awful it is, when at the same time arguably life ahs never been better for most people. Who among you would rather be living in the 80's again? Really?
One wonders what the future will bring. AI is clearly a challenge to many ways of earning a living. How far can it go? Will there be jobs in the future? How then does a society allocate wealth? How do you generate wealth?
Lots of questions, few answers. One thing I will add - interest in studying at University doesn't seem to be declining - we have seen record interest at our recent two Open Days. The University apocalypse has not yet started.
It will. If you think about it, it is inevitable
Some big wig in the Spectator is predicting that 80% of universities will shut within 10 years. That seems hyperbolic to me, but the direction is clear
Well, that would release a hell of a lot of modern studio flats onto the market, as good affordable housing. Subject to government changing the regulations to allow non-students to live in places that small.
(Are student flats counted in housebuilding stats? They're too small for normal habitation by law so maybe not...)
Chatted with the site surveyor of some student accommodation in West London, a while back. He was pretty open that, when you looked at soil stacks etc, the plan was obviously to build in conversion to "normal" flats. So a few non structural walls go, change the kitchen and bathrooms etc but the building itself is ready for it.
He reckoned that the idea was that the student gentrify the locality, while paying off the original paper on the building. Then covert and sell. And use part of the money to build new student accommodation, not far away, in another dodgy bit.
Sounds like a good thing. Why wouldn't that be something to be open about?
Air quality in London, now the EU diesel years are over, is much better. 20% of cars are electric. No brown haze over the city when it is hot.
I remember the Great Fog of 1957 Even in South Essex it was grimy.
How many did that kill ?
Back in the 60s in the industrial West Riding, I was not altogether infrequently late for school when dense yellow fog reduced car speeds to about 15mph.
The 1952 Great Smog killed maybe 12000. 1957 was a lot fewer, maybe 750, including 2 from the Lewisham rail crash.
It's still an issue. (*) If you go up onto Kinder Scout on a clear day and look west, you can see a brown layer lying low in the distance towards Manchester. I've seen the same, once, looking east from the edge towards Sheffield. In a few cases, you can actually see a faint line where the smog begins.
It must have been hideous a hundred years ago.
The clean air acts are some of the best legislation ever passed in Britain.
I love history and reading about history. I've just started Dominic Sandbrook's "Who dares wins", about the history of Britain in the years 1979-1982 (essentially Maggie's first three years). Its starts with a stark depiction of the UK in terminal decline - nothing works, the nation is getting poorer, hotels are terrible, with rude staff and poor service (Fawlty Tower's is regarded as not that far from reality) and so on. Strikingly it records the New York Times laying into the UK from afar.
Its all so strikingly reminiscent of current times. What's interesting is when you move beyond the doomsayers, as Sandbrook does, it wasn't actually that bad. Were people better off in 1980 than in 1960? Undoubtedly. They had better houses, central heating, TV's , more stuff in general. And yet the air of decline was all around. Sandbrook points out that the real mallaise for Britain was that it was the first major industrial economy to start to move away from the traditional industries (coal, steel etc) to services, and so it looked like the 'sick man of Europe' mainly because it was the first country to undergo this process, not through an inherent problem.
The opening chapter resonates with me. We have so many people claiming national decline, and saying how awful it is, when at the same time arguably life ahs never been better for most people. Who among you would rather be living in the 80's again? Really?
One wonders what the future will bring. AI is clearly a challenge to many ways of earning a living. How far can it go? Will there be jobs in the future? How then does a society allocate wealth? How do you generate wealth?
Lots of questions, few answers. One thing I will add - interest in studying at University doesn't seem to be declining - we have seen record interest at our recent two Open Days. The University apocalypse has not yet started.
It will. If you think about it, it is inevitable
Some big wig in the Spectator is predicting that 80% of universities will shut within 10 years. That seems hyperbolic to me, but the direction is clear
Well, that would release a hell of a lot of modern studio flats onto the market, as good affordable housing. Subject to government changing the regulations to allow non-students to live in places that small.
(Are student flats counted in housebuilding stats? They're too small for normal habitation by law so maybe not...)
Chatted with the site surveyor of some student accommodation in West London, a while back. He was pretty open that, when you looked at soil stacks etc, the plan was obviously to build in conversion to "normal" flats. So a few non structural walls go, change the kitchen and bathrooms etc but the building itself is ready for it.
He reckoned that the idea was that the student gentrify the locality, while paying off the original paper on the building. Then covert and sell. And use part of the money to build new student accommodation, not far away, in another dodgy bit.
Put like that, it's probably not a bad idea. Shame for the need to be so cloak-and-dagger about it.
I love history and reading about history. I've just started Dominic Sandbrook's "Who dares wins", about the history of Britain in the years 1979-1982 (essentially Maggie's first three years). Its starts with a stark depiction of the UK in terminal decline - nothing works, the nation is getting poorer, hotels are terrible, with rude staff and poor service (Fawlty Tower's is regarded as not that far from reality) and so on. Strikingly it records the New York Times laying into the UK from afar.
Its all so strikingly reminiscent of current times. What's interesting is when you move beyond the doomsayers, as Sandbrook does, it wasn't actually that bad. Were people better off in 1980 than in 1960? Undoubtedly. They had better houses, central heating, TV's , more stuff in general. And yet the air of decline was all around. Sandbrook points out that the real mallaise for Britain was that it was the first major industrial economy to start to move away from the traditional industries (coal, steel etc) to services, and so it looked like the 'sick man of Europe' mainly because it was the first country to undergo this process, not through an inherent problem.
The opening chapter resonates with me. We have so many people claiming national decline, and saying how awful it is, when at the same time arguably life ahs never been better for most people. Who among you would rather be living in the 80's again? Really?
One wonders what the future will bring. AI is clearly a challenge to many ways of earning a living. How far can it go? Will there be jobs in the future? How then does a society allocate wealth? How do you generate wealth?
Lots of questions, few answers. One thing I will add - interest in studying at University doesn't seem to be declining - we have seen record interest at our recent two Open Days. The University apocalypse has not yet started.
It will. If you think about it, it is inevitable
Some big wig in the Spectator is predicting that 80% of universities will shut within 10 years. That seems hyperbolic to me, but the direction is clear
Well, that would release a hell of a lot of modern studio flats onto the market, as good affordable housing. Subject to government changing the regulations to allow non-students to live in places that small.
(Are student flats counted in housebuilding stats? They're too small for normal habitation by law so maybe not...)
Chatted with the site surveyor of some student accommodation in West London, a while back. He was pretty open that, when you looked at soil stacks etc, the plan was obviously to build in conversion to "normal" flats. So a few non structural walls go, change the kitchen and bathrooms etc but the building itself is ready for it.
He reckoned that the idea was that the student gentrify the locality, while paying off the original paper on the building. Then covert and sell. And use part of the money to build new student accommodation, not far away, in another dodgy bit.
Sounds like a good thing. Why wouldn't that be something to be open about?
Student accommodation is a way round the planning laws requiring x amount of affordable housing.
IIRC, converting it for full domestic doesn’t trigger those rules.
Air quality in London, now the EU diesel years are over, is much better. 20% of cars are electric. No brown haze over the city when it is hot.
I remember the Great Fog of 1957 Even in South Essex it was grimy.
How many did that kill ?
Back in the 60s in the industrial West Riding, I was not altogether infrequently late for school when dense yellow fog reduced car speeds to about 15mph.
The 1952 Great Smog killed maybe 12000. 1957 was a lot fewer, maybe 750, including 2 from the Lewisham rail crash.
It's still an issue. (*) If you go up onto Kinder Scout on a clear day and look west, you can see a brown layer lying low in the distance towards Manchester. I've seen the same, once, looking east from the edge towards Sheffield. In a few cases, you can actually see a faint line where the smog begins.
(*) Well, ten years ago.
It's very different since the Clean Air Acts. Although air pollution is still estimated to kill 30k in the UK per year.
Rule no 1 never accept the first quote from any insurer about anything. If they drop.the price to keep.you then they were ripping you off with the first quote.
Which, as a company in a free market, is pretty much their duty. For the market to work, the seller has got to pitch for as much as they think they can get away with and the buyer as little as possible. Then they are meant to haggle to get to something both sides are happy with.
But yes, it's a hassle, for some a very disagreeable hassle. I'd much rather not bother, and would happily pay quite a bit more to not do so.
(See also, utility contracts and salaries. High pay is often more about willingness to demand it as any intrinsic worth of the job or brilliance at it.)
The best compliment I ever received from a client was “you were very expensive but well worth it”.
London might be paradise to you southern softies, but get out of your bubble and head up the M1 and you'll find a different world. Loughborough. Got the university and not much else . Any bit of land/ empty building finds itself turned into student accommodation or bulldozed for student accommodation. The Carillion Shopping Centre has been the focal point of the Town Centre as long as I can remember. It's currently empty, shops having had all their tenancies terminated so the owners can knock it down and build an eight floor student accommodation block, right slap bang in the middle of the town. There's a planning wrangle currently going on. The massive Cineworld has closed and the restaurants and bars that were destined to open in the adjoining development never really happened- fully half the units have been empty since it was completed. Very few shops survive in the town longer than 6 months, unless it's fast food, Turkish barber or nail bar. Even the charity shops are moving out. We have no idea what a museum or art gallery is. Still, the empty shops do give the homeless some doorways to sleep in.
This is pretty common in my experience, and imagine if you don't have a big uni providing that demand.
I had the misfortune to change train in Stafford the other week, which as a kid I went to on quite a regular basis, since then its population has gone up, but bloody hell the town centre is a shithole. And people live there as its nicer than living in Stoke.
Who is Nige going to screw over/disappoint if/when he's in power ?
Customary procedure is to screw over everyone. Only question is in what order.
Assuming the Fukkers make it to government with a stable majority, there will be a few things they want to do, are able to do and will please idiots like this who vote for them:
1. Leave ECHR. 2. Environmental vandalism. 3. Ostentatious cruelty toward immigrants, LGBTQ community and anybody not a hypertensive, white cismale. 4. Loads of flegs.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
I remember Elephant and Castle being universally derided as an utter hell hole back in the day. But a friend of mine moved there a couple of years ago and I couldn't believe how swish a lot of that area now is.
So, a concentric doughnut pattern. Hyper-central London tattier and suffering from reduced footfall since Covid. The inner city ring, particularly in previously deprived areas of the East and South, notably improved and probably also the biggest beneficiary of cleaner air. Then the outer suburbs and satellite towns suffering the same retail stagnation as towns across the rest of the country, with a few bright spots in well connected burbs that have gained outflows from the centre.
Then SW London along the Thames just leafily the same as it’s always been.
I don't think that's quite right: Kings Cross and environs is a lot nicer, as is the area around Aldgate. Most of Central Central London is as it's ever been - Marylebone remains delightful for example.
Now some areas have gotten worse sure: Oxford Street would be the classic example. And Victoria - surrounded on all sides by nice places - has somehow managed to keep declining.
I think a lot of this is Covid related: there used to be lots of people coming to the Victoria area for work. If they're not there, then there's no bustling restaurant scene to replace them. Likewise, people came to Oxford Street to shop. Now, give how good internet shopping is, why shop in person?
It's the areas with lots of new residential property that have done best: because those people moving into nice apartments want nice coffee shops and supermarkets and the like.
I love history and reading about history. I've just started Dominic Sandbrook's "Who dares wins", about the history of Britain in the years 1979-1982 (essentially Maggie's first three years). Its starts with a stark depiction of the UK in terminal decline - nothing works, the nation is getting poorer, hotels are terrible, with rude staff and poor service (Fawlty Tower's is regarded as not that far from reality) and so on. Strikingly it records the New York Times laying into the UK from afar.
Its all so strikingly reminiscent of current times. What's interesting is when you move beyond the doomsayers, as Sandbrook does, it wasn't actually that bad. Were people better off in 1980 than in 1960? Undoubtedly. They had better houses, central heating, TV's , more stuff in general. And yet the air of decline was all around. Sandbrook points out that the real mallaise for Britain was that it was the first major industrial economy to start to move away from the traditional industries (coal, steel etc) to services, and so it looked like the 'sick man of Europe' mainly because it was the first country to undergo this process, not through an inherent problem.
The opening chapter resonates with me. We have so many people claiming national decline, and saying how awful it is, when at the same time arguably life ahs never been better for most people. Who among you would rather be living in the 80's again? Really?
One wonders what the future will bring. AI is clearly a challenge to many ways of earning a living. How far can it go? Will there be jobs in the future? How then does a society allocate wealth? How do you generate wealth?
Lots of questions, few answers. One thing I will add - interest in studying at University doesn't seem to be declining - we have seen record interest at our recent two Open Days. The University apocalypse has not yet started.
It will. If you think about it, it is inevitable
Some big wig in the Spectator is predicting that 80% of universities will shut within 10 years. That seems hyperbolic to me, but the direction is clear
Well, that would release a hell of a lot of modern studio flats onto the market, as good affordable housing. Subject to government changing the regulations to allow non-students to live in places that small.
(Are student flats counted in housebuilding stats? They're too small for normal habitation by law so maybe not...)
Chatted with the site surveyor of some student accommodation in West London, a while back. He was pretty open that, when you looked at soil stacks etc, the plan was obviously to build in conversion to "normal" flats. So a few non structural walls go, change the kitchen and bathrooms etc but the building itself is ready for it.
He reckoned that the idea was that the student gentrify the locality, while paying off the original paper on the building. Then covert and sell. And use part of the money to build new student accommodation, not far away, in another dodgy bit.
Sounds like a good thing. Why wouldn't that be something to be open about?
Student accommodation is a way round the planning laws requiring x amount of affordable housing.
IIRC, converting it for full domestic doesn’t trigger those rules.
Those laws should be abolished anyway.
All new housing improves affordability. All construction improves supply and affordability is supply versus demand.
Air quality in London, now the EU diesel years are over, is much better. 20% of cars are electric. No brown haze over the city when it is hot.
I remember the Great Fog of 1957 Even in South Essex it was grimy.
How many did that kill ?
Back in the 60s in the industrial West Riding, I was not altogether infrequently late for school when dense yellow fog reduced car speeds to about 15mph.
The 1952 Great Smog killed maybe 12000. 1957 was a lot fewer, maybe 750, including 2 from the Lewisham rail crash.
It's still an issue. (*) If you go up onto Kinder Scout on a clear day and look west, you can see a brown layer lying low in the distance towards Manchester. I've seen the same, once, looking east from the edge towards Sheffield. In a few cases, you can actually see a faint line where the smog begins.
It must have been hideous a hundred years ago.
The clean air acts are some of the best legislation ever passed in Britain.
(*) Well, ten years ago.
I recall my Dad complaining why they extended the 'smokeless zone' to our house.
Hence my lifelong scepticism about bureacracy gone mad complaints.
London might be paradise to you southern softies, but get out of your bubble and head up the M1 and you'll find a different world. Loughborough. Got the university and not much else . Any bit of land/ empty building finds itself turned into student accommodation or bulldozed for student accommodation. The Carillion Shopping Centre has been the focal point of the Town Centre as long as I can remember. It's currently empty, shops having had all their tenancies terminated so the owners can knock it down and build an eight floor student accommodation block, right slap bang in the middle of the town. There's a planning wrangle currently going on. The massive Cineworld has closed and the restaurants and bars that were destined to open in the adjoining development never really happened- fully half the units have been empty since it was completed. Very few shops survive in the town longer than 6 months, unless it's fast food, Turkish barber or nail bar. Even the charity shops are moving out. We have no idea what a museum or art gallery is. Still, the empty shops do give the homeless some doorways to sleep in.
Tell me about it. Somebody took the little city I grew up in and loved and replaced it with a sweaty turd. Norwich is dying on its arse. There's no Thursday night late shopping anymore, the two shopping centres are deserted and full of nonsense shops and phone screen repair shacks. The nightlife is non existent or violent. There's a big Primark and last year a massive Poundland opened. Grim. The last remaining treasures- the market and the lanes will no doubt get flattened soon enough.
I love history and reading about history. I've just started Dominic Sandbrook's "Who dares wins", about the history of Britain in the years 1979-1982 (essentially Maggie's first three years). Its starts with a stark depiction of the UK in terminal decline - nothing works, the nation is getting poorer, hotels are terrible, with rude staff and poor service (Fawlty Tower's is regarded as not that far from reality) and so on. Strikingly it records the New York Times laying into the UK from afar.
Its all so strikingly reminiscent of current times. What's interesting is when you move beyond the doomsayers, as Sandbrook does, it wasn't actually that bad. Were people better off in 1980 than in 1960? Undoubtedly. They had better houses, central heating, TV's , more stuff in general. And yet the air of decline was all around. Sandbrook points out that the real mallaise for Britain was that it was the first major industrial economy to start to move away from the traditional industries (coal, steel etc) to services, and so it looked like the 'sick man of Europe' mainly because it was the first country to undergo this process, not through an inherent problem.
The opening chapter resonates with me. We have so many people claiming national decline, and saying how awful it is, when at the same time arguably life ahs never been better for most people. Who among you would rather be living in the 80's again? Really?
One wonders what the future will bring. AI is clearly a challenge to many ways of earning a living. How far can it go? Will there be jobs in the future? How then does a society allocate wealth? How do you generate wealth?
Lots of questions, few answers. One thing I will add - interest in studying at University doesn't seem to be declining - we have seen record interest at our recent two Open Days. The University apocalypse has not yet started.
It will. If you think about it, it is inevitable
Some big wig in the Spectator is predicting that 80% of universities will shut within 10 years. That seems hyperbolic to me, but the direction is clear
Well, that would release a hell of a lot of modern studio flats onto the market, as good affordable housing. Subject to government changing the regulations to allow non-students to live in places that small.
(Are student flats counted in housebuilding stats? They're too small for normal habitation by law so maybe not...)
Chatted with the site surveyor of some student accommodation in West London, a while back. He was pretty open that, when you looked at soil stacks etc, the plan was obviously to build in conversion to "normal" flats. So a few non structural walls go, change the kitchen and bathrooms etc but the building itself is ready for it.
He reckoned that the idea was that the student gentrify the locality, while paying off the original paper on the building. Then covert and sell. And use part of the money to build new student accommodation, not far away, in another dodgy bit.
Sounds like a good thing. Why wouldn't that be something to be open about?
Student accommodation is a way round the planning laws requiring x amount of affordable housing.
IIRC, converting it for full domestic doesn’t trigger those rules.
Those laws should be abolished anyway.
All new housing improves affordability. All construction improves supply and affordability is supply versus demand.
This is an absolutely crucial point: it almost doesn't matter what gets built, as long as something gets built. Because every house, apartment, student hall of residence, etc., provides incremental accomodation and lowers the price of all housing.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
"And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him."
That's probably because of the people you associate with. They're either other right-wing nutcases, or sane people who just nod politely as they think: "who is this ranting nutter? I'd better just agree..."
That's a thing about conversations: they can be directed quite easily, especially if people have not got firm views on the matter.
I live in NW1. Have you ever been to NW1, or indeed north London? Most of my friends in London are left wing - yet they all feel the city has gone down hill
My kids think this. Everyone thinks this
Which handily shows the problem is you.
Believing that some things about London haven't got worse recently is a faith. It's not based on real life.
That's not what he's saying, though. He is saying *everyone* thinks the same as him. It's bullshit.
I think the village I live in is a very nice place to live. I'd give it 8.5 out of 10. Not perfect, but pleasant. I've just been to the dentist; a mile walk there along a quietish road with wide pavements, and a mile walk back through a country park. If I talk to people about the village, they agree it's a nice place to live. Perhaps because I'm positive about it.
But I'm not so braindead stupid as to think that everyone feels the same way. Occasionally on a village FB group someone will say: "I'm thinking of moving to the village. What is it like?" The responses are generally "It's great!". But you also get a few: "It's a hellhole; crime is everywhere and the kids are out of control!!!!!"
If you up to people and says: "Isn't this place an absolute hellhole compared to ten years ago, eh?", you'll get more people saying that it's a hellhole than if you say "Isn't this place lovely?"
London might be paradise to you southern softies, but get out of your bubble and head up the M1 and you'll find a different world. Loughborough. Got the university and not much else . Any bit of land/ empty building finds itself turned into student accommodation or bulldozed for student accommodation. The Carillion Shopping Centre has been the focal point of the Town Centre as long as I can remember. It's currently empty, shops having had all their tenancies terminated so the owners can knock it down and build an eight floor student accommodation block, right slap bang in the middle of the town. There's a planning wrangle currently going on. The massive Cineworld has closed and the restaurants and bars that were destined to open in the adjoining development never really happened- fully half the units have been empty since it was completed. Very few shops survive in the town longer than 6 months, unless it's fast food, Turkish barber or nail bar. Even the charity shops are moving out. We have no idea what a museum or art gallery is. Still, the empty shops do give the homeless some doorways to sleep in.
This is pretty common in my experience, and imagine if you don't have a big uni providing that demand. I had the misfortune to change train in Stafford the other week, which as a kid I went to on quite a regular basis, since then its population has gone up, but bloody hell the town centre is a shithole. And people live there as its nicer than living in Stoke.
We joke around here that Loughborough is a big University with a town attached to it. It's a double edged sword. Obviously brings benefits, but also takes up housing, brings massive parking issues and there doesn't seem to be an end to the number of new accommodation blocks they need.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
I remember Elephant and Castle being universally derided as an utter hell hole back in the day. But a friend of mine moved there a couple of years ago and I couldn't believe how swish a lot of that area now is.
So, a concentric doughnut pattern. Hyper-central London tattier and suffering from reduced footfall since Covid. The inner city ring, particularly in previously deprived areas of the East and South, notably improved and probably also the biggest beneficiary of cleaner air. Then the outer suburbs and satellite towns suffering the same retail stagnation as towns across the rest of the country, with a few bright spots in well connected burbs that have gained outflows from the centre.
Then SW London along the Thames just leafily the same as it’s always been.
I don't think that's quite right: Kings Cross and environs is a lot nicer, as is the area around Aldgate. Most of Central Central London is as it's ever been - Marylebone remains delightful for example.
Now some areas have gotten worse sure: Oxford Street would be the classic example. And Victoria - surrounded on all sides by nice places - has somehow managed to keep declining.
I think a lot of this is Covid related: there used to be lots of people coming to the Victoria area for work. If they're not there, then there's no bustling restaurant scene to replace them. Likewise, people came to Oxford Street to shop. Now, give how good internet shopping is, why shop in person?
It's the areas with lots of new residential property that have done best: because those people moving into nice apartments want nice coffee shops and supermarkets and the like.
I have a cyclical concept of urban decay. An area is great and new, but slowly declines over time as it ages and other areas are improved. It then reaches a point where it is so old and tatty, that it is worthwhile rebuilding or renovating it. Hence, in fifty years time, Oxford Street and Victoria might be the good areas, whilst King's Cross might be back to how it was when I knew it well in the early nineties.
Some areas may well have been through the cycle a couple of times.
Indeed, it's probably healthy for a city to be like that.
I love history and reading about history. I've just started Dominic Sandbrook's "Who dares wins", about the history of Britain in the years 1979-1982 (essentially Maggie's first three years). Its starts with a stark depiction of the UK in terminal decline - nothing works, the nation is getting poorer, hotels are terrible, with rude staff and poor service (Fawlty Tower's is regarded as not that far from reality) and so on. Strikingly it records the New York Times laying into the UK from afar.
Its all so strikingly reminiscent of current times. What's interesting is when you move beyond the doomsayers, as Sandbrook does, it wasn't actually that bad. Were people better off in 1980 than in 1960? Undoubtedly. They had better houses, central heating, TV's , more stuff in general. And yet the air of decline was all around. Sandbrook points out that the real mallaise for Britain was that it was the first major industrial economy to start to move away from the traditional industries (coal, steel etc) to services, and so it looked like the 'sick man of Europe' mainly because it was the first country to undergo this process, not through an inherent problem.
The opening chapter resonates with me. We have so many people claiming national decline, and saying how awful it is, when at the same time arguably life ahs never been better for most people. Who among you would rather be living in the 80's again? Really?
One wonders what the future will bring. AI is clearly a challenge to many ways of earning a living. How far can it go? Will there be jobs in the future? How then does a society allocate wealth? How do you generate wealth?
Lots of questions, few answers. One thing I will add - interest in studying at University doesn't seem to be declining - we have seen record interest at our recent two Open Days. The University apocalypse has not yet started.
It will. If you think about it, it is inevitable
Some big wig in the Spectator is predicting that 80% of universities will shut within 10 years. That seems hyperbolic to me, but the direction is clear
Well, that would release a hell of a lot of modern studio flats onto the market, as good affordable housing. Subject to government changing the regulations to allow non-students to live in places that small.
(Are student flats counted in housebuilding stats? They're too small for normal habitation by law so maybe not...)
Chatted with the site surveyor of some student accommodation in West London, a while back. He was pretty open that, when you looked at soil stacks etc, the plan was obviously to build in conversion to "normal" flats. So a few non structural walls go, change the kitchen and bathrooms etc but the building itself is ready for it.
He reckoned that the idea was that the student gentrify the locality, while paying off the original paper on the building. Then covert and sell. And use part of the money to build new student accommodation, not far away, in another dodgy bit.
Sounds like a good thing. Why wouldn't that be something to be open about?
Student accommodation is a way round the planning laws requiring x amount of affordable housing.
IIRC, converting it for full domestic doesn’t trigger those rules.
Sensible future-proofing of new build is one of the best investments you can make in construction. Irrespective of planning regs.
Far too many developers try to squeeze the last half percentage of margin, imposing much greater costs down the line.
London might be paradise to you southern softies, but get out of your bubble and head up the M1 and you'll find a different world. Loughborough. Got the university and not much else . Any bit of land/ empty building finds itself turned into student accommodation or bulldozed for student accommodation. The Carillion Shopping Centre has been the focal point of the Town Centre as long as I can remember. It's currently empty, shops having had all their tenancies terminated so the owners can knock it down and build an eight floor student accommodation block, right slap bang in the middle of the town. There's a planning wrangle currently going on. The massive Cineworld has closed and the restaurants and bars that were destined to open in the adjoining development never really happened- fully half the units have been empty since it was completed. Very few shops survive in the town longer than 6 months, unless it's fast food, Turkish barber or nail bar. Even the charity shops are moving out. We have no idea what a museum or art gallery is. Still, the empty shops do give the homeless some doorways to sleep in.
Tell me about it. Somebody took the little city I grew up in and loved and replaced it with a sweaty turd. Norwich is dying on its arse. There's no Thursday night late shopping anymore, the two shopping centres are deserted and full of nonsense shops and phone screen repair shacks. The nightlife is non existent or violent. There's a big Primark and last year a massive Poundland opened. Grim. The last remaining treasures- the market and the lanes will no doubt get flattened soon enough.
I love history and reading about history. I've just started Dominic Sandbrook's "Who dares wins", about the history of Britain in the years 1979-1982 (essentially Maggie's first three years). Its starts with a stark depiction of the UK in terminal decline - nothing works, the nation is getting poorer, hotels are terrible, with rude staff and poor service (Fawlty Tower's is regarded as not that far from reality) and so on. Strikingly it records the New York Times laying into the UK from afar.
Its all so strikingly reminiscent of current times. What's interesting is when you move beyond the doomsayers, as Sandbrook does, it wasn't actually that bad. Were people better off in 1980 than in 1960? Undoubtedly. They had better houses, central heating, TV's , more stuff in general. And yet the air of decline was all around. Sandbrook points out that the real mallaise for Britain was that it was the first major industrial economy to start to move away from the traditional industries (coal, steel etc) to services, and so it looked like the 'sick man of Europe' mainly because it was the first country to undergo this process, not through an inherent problem.
The opening chapter resonates with me. We have so many people claiming national decline, and saying how awful it is, when at the same time arguably life ahs never been better for most people. Who among you would rather be living in the 80's again? Really?
One wonders what the future will bring. AI is clearly a challenge to many ways of earning a living. How far can it go? Will there be jobs in the future? How then does a society allocate wealth? How do you generate wealth?
Lots of questions, few answers. One thing I will add - interest in studying at University doesn't seem to be declining - we have seen record interest at our recent two Open Days. The University apocalypse has not yet started.
It will. If you think about it, it is inevitable
Some big wig in the Spectator is predicting that 80% of universities will shut within 10 years. That seems hyperbolic to me, but the direction is clear
Well, that would release a hell of a lot of modern studio flats onto the market, as good affordable housing. Subject to government changing the regulations to allow non-students to live in places that small.
(Are student flats counted in housebuilding stats? They're too small for normal habitation by law so maybe not...)
Chatted with the site surveyor of some student accommodation in West London, a while back. He was pretty open that, when you looked at soil stacks etc, the plan was obviously to build in conversion to "normal" flats. So a few non structural walls go, change the kitchen and bathrooms etc but the building itself is ready for it.
He reckoned that the idea was that the student gentrify the locality, while paying off the original paper on the building. Then covert and sell. And use part of the money to build new student accommodation, not far away, in another dodgy bit.
Sounds like a good thing. Why wouldn't that be something to be open about?
Student accommodation is a way round the planning laws requiring x amount of affordable housing.
IIRC, converting it for full domestic doesn’t trigger those rules.
Those laws should be abolished anyway.
All new housing improves affordability. All construction improves supply and affordability is supply versus demand.
This is an absolutely crucial point: it almost doesn't matter what gets built, as long as something gets built. Because every house, apartment, student hall of residence, etc., provides incremental accomodation and lowers the price of all housing.
You obviously didn't get the memo - the laws of supply and demand don't work for housing.
Because if they did, the answer is to build more housing. Which would upset lots of people.
The real answer is that 90% of all housing has been stolen by the Trans Gay Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs who are storing it in hyperspace. Once we deal with them, it will all pop back into reality. Then everyone can have a cheap flat.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
I remember Elephant and Castle being universally derided as an utter hell hole back in the day. But a friend of mine moved there a couple of years ago and I couldn't believe how swish a lot of that area now is.
So, a concentric doughnut pattern. Hyper-central London tattier and suffering from reduced footfall since Covid. The inner city ring, particularly in previously deprived areas of the East and South, notably improved and probably also the biggest beneficiary of cleaner air. Then the outer suburbs and satellite towns suffering the same retail stagnation as towns across the rest of the country, with a few bright spots in well connected burbs that have gained outflows from the centre.
Then SW London along the Thames just leafily the same as it’s always been.
I don't think that's quite right: Kings Cross and environs is a lot nicer, as is the area around Aldgate. Most of Central Central London is as it's ever been - Marylebone remains delightful for example.
Now some areas have gotten worse sure: Oxford Street would be the classic example. And Victoria - surrounded on all sides by nice places - has somehow managed to keep declining.
I think a lot of this is Covid related: there used to be lots of people coming to the Victoria area for work. If they're not there, then there's no bustling restaurant scene to replace them. Likewise, people came to Oxford Street to shop. Now, give how good internet shopping is, why shop in person?
It's the areas with lots of new residential property that have done best: because those people moving into nice apartments want nice coffee shops and supermarkets and the like.
Victoria has always been a strange anomaly. And Pimlico. Extremely central yet also somehow out on a limb and stranded, like a small eddy in the stream.
Who is Nige going to screw over/disappoint if/when he's in power ?
Customary procedure is to screw over everyone. Only question is in what order.
Assuming the Fukkers make it to government with a stable majority, there will be a few things they want to do, are able to do and will please idiots like this who vote for them:
1. Leave ECHR. 2. Environmental vandalism. 3. Ostentatious cruelty toward immigrants, LGBTQ community and anybody not a hypertensive, white cismale. 4. Loads of flegs.
London might be paradise to you southern softies, but get out of your bubble and head up the M1 and you'll find a different world. Loughborough. Got the university and not much else . Any bit of land/ empty building finds itself turned into student accommodation or bulldozed for student accommodation. The Carillion Shopping Centre has been the focal point of the Town Centre as long as I can remember. It's currently empty, shops having had all their tenancies terminated so the owners can knock it down and build an eight floor student accommodation block, right slap bang in the middle of the town. There's a planning wrangle currently going on. The massive Cineworld has closed and the restaurants and bars that were destined to open in the adjoining development never really happened- fully half the units have been empty since it was completed. Very few shops survive in the town longer than 6 months, unless it's fast food, Turkish barber or nail bar. Even the charity shops are moving out. We have no idea what a museum or art gallery is. Still, the empty shops do give the homeless some doorways to sleep in.
Tell me about it. Somebody took the little city I grew up in and loved and replaced it with a sweaty turd. Norwich is dying on its arse. There's no Thursday night late shopping anymore, the two shopping centres are deserted and full of nonsense shops and phone screen repair shacks. The nightlife is non existent or violent. There's a big Primark and last year a massive Poundland opened. Grim. The last remaining treasures- the market and the lanes will no doubt get flattened soon enough.
Based on that I wonder how much correlation there is between "prefer/hate internet shopping" and "my area is getting better/worse to live".
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
"And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him."
That's probably because of the people you associate with. They're either other right-wing nutcases, or sane people who just nod politely as they think: "who is this ranting nutter? I'd better just agree..."
That's a thing about conversations: they can be directed quite easily, especially if people have not got firm views on the matter.
I live in NW1. Have you ever been to NW1, or indeed north London? Most of my friends in London are left wing - yet they all feel the city has gone down hill
My kids think this. Everyone thinks this
Which handily shows the problem is you.
Believing that some things about London haven't got worse recently is a faith. It's not based on real life.
That's not what he's saying, though. He is saying *everyone* thinks the same as him. It's bullshit.
I think the village I live in is a very nice place to live. I'd give it 8.5 out of 10. Not perfect, but pleasant. I've just been to the dentist; a mile walk there along a quietish road with wide pavements, and a mile walk back through a country park. If I talk to people about the village, they agree it's a nice place to live. Perhaps because I'm positive about it.
But I'm not so braindead stupid as to think that everyone feels the same way. Occasionally on a village FB group someone will say: "I'm thinking of moving to the village. What is it like?" The responses are generally "It's great!". But you also get a few: "It's a hellhole; crime is everywhere and the kids are out of control!!!!!"
If you up to people and says: "Isn't this place an absolute hellhole compared to ten years ago, eh?", you'll get more people saying that it's a hellhole than if you say "Isn't this place lovely?"
It's a function of the number of flint knappers in the neighbourhood. One moves in and the whole place goes to hell. In about 5 minutes. They start stocking pre-flaked parmesan at the Waitrose.... that's how it begins.
London might be paradise to you southern softies, but get out of your bubble and head up the M1 and you'll find a different world. Loughborough. Got the university and not much else . Any bit of land/ empty building finds itself turned into student accommodation or bulldozed for student accommodation. The Carillion Shopping Centre has been the focal point of the Town Centre as long as I can remember. It's currently empty, shops having had all their tenancies terminated so the owners can knock it down and build an eight floor student accommodation block, right slap bang in the middle of the town. There's a planning wrangle currently going on. The massive Cineworld has closed and the restaurants and bars that were destined to open in the adjoining development never really happened- fully half the units have been empty since it was completed. Very few shops survive in the town longer than 6 months, unless it's fast food, Turkish barber or nail bar. Even the charity shops are moving out. We have no idea what a museum or art gallery is. Still, the empty shops do give the homeless some doorways to sleep in.
Tell me about it. Somebody took the little city I grew up in and loved and replaced it with a sweaty turd. Norwich is dying on its arse. There's no Thursday night late shopping anymore, the two shopping centres are deserted and full of nonsense shops and phone screen repair shacks. The nightlife is non existent or violent. There's a big Primark and last year a massive Poundland opened. Grim. The last remaining treasures- the market and the lanes will no doubt get flattened soon enough.
you still have a Poundland? luxury!
Its massive. Norwich has massive versions of dying shops. We used to have a big Athena, big Top Shop, a bigMr Byrite, a big Virgin Megastore - you get the idea. Merchants come to Norwich to die
Talking of cities and relative niceness, I’m on the direct Eurostar from London to Amsterdam (smart, pretty, thriving, easy to navigate) which stops at Brussels (grey, tatty, uninspiring, no discernible logic in its urban geography).
There are fans of Brussels out there, usually those who have lived there for a bit, but I’m not one of them.
I would argue that the area of Central London where my apartment is (Shaftesbury Avenue) has gotten worse. We're right by Forbidden Planet, and the number of homeless drug addicts on the street has dramatically increased in the post Covid period.
I used to go up Tottenham Court Road way quite a bit and that was a very grim area in the late 80s through to much of the 90s. Whenever I read these "London is done" stories I always think that they can't remember just how bad it was before.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
"And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him."
That's probably because of the people you associate with. They're either other right-wing nutcases, or sane people who just nod politely as they think: "who is this ranting nutter? I'd better just agree..."
That's a thing about conversations: they can be directed quite easily, especially if people have not got firm views on the matter.
I live in NW1. Have you ever been to NW1, or indeed north London? Most of my friends in London are left wing - yet they all feel the city has gone down hill
My kids think this. Everyone thinks this
Which handily shows the problem is you.
Believing that some things about London haven't got worse recently is a faith. It's not based on real life.
That's not what he's saying, though. He is saying *everyone* thinks the same as him. It's bullshit.
I think the village I live in is a very nice place to live. I'd give it 8.5 out of 10. Not perfect, but pleasant. I've just been to the dentist; a mile walk there along a quietish road with wide pavements, and a mile walk back through a country park. If I talk to people about the village, they agree it's a nice place to live. Perhaps because I'm positive about it.
But I'm not so braindead stupid as to think that everyone feels the same way. Occasionally on a village FB group someone will say: "I'm thinking of moving to the village. What is it like?" The responses are generally "It's great!". But you also get a few: "It's a hellhole; crime is everywhere and the kids are out of control!!!!!"
If you up to people and says: "Isn't this place an absolute hellhole compared to ten years ago, eh?", you'll get more people saying that it's a hellhole than if you say "Isn't this place lovely?"
Main complaint here is the fact that there aren't as many pubs as Once Upon a Time.
@haynesdeborah Has the UK ever seemed so irrelevant in an international crisis? Genuine question... The government isn't even able to say publicly if it is for or against the US strikes on Iran Defence minister @LukePollard dodged the question despite being asked 4 times by @WilfredFrost
Q: Is our government pleased or disappointed that the US took this action (to attack Iran)? A: It is not for me to comment on the particular US action
There's no shame in a small nation with little geopolitical power being irrelevant in an international crisis. The usual boring criticism is that the UK hasn't adjusted to its irrelevance on the world stage. Interesting to find this time it is a commentator who hasn't adjusted to the change.
I agree and disagree. It's one thing to acknowledge that our foreign policy makes very little difference. It is quite another to ban ourselves from having one.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has said "we must act now" as he announced a national investigation into maternity care in England.
The "rapid" inquiry will urgently look at the worst-performing maternity and neonatal services in the country, including Leeds, Sussex, Gloucester, and Mid and South Essex.
London might be paradise to you southern softies, but get out of your bubble and head up the M1 and you'll find a different world. Loughborough. Got the university and not much else . Any bit of land/ empty building finds itself turned into student accommodation or bulldozed for student accommodation. The Carillion Shopping Centre has been the focal point of the Town Centre as long as I can remember. It's currently empty, shops having had all their tenancies terminated so the owners can knock it down and build an eight floor student accommodation block, right slap bang in the middle of the town. There's a planning wrangle currently going on. The massive Cineworld has closed and the restaurants and bars that were destined to open in the adjoining development never really happened- fully half the units have been empty since it was completed. Very few shops survive in the town longer than 6 months, unless it's fast food, Turkish barber or nail bar. Even the charity shops are moving out. We have no idea what a museum or art gallery is. Still, the empty shops do give the homeless some doorways to sleep in.
Tell me about it. Somebody took the little city I grew up in and loved and replaced it with a sweaty turd. Norwich is dying on its arse. There's no Thursday night late shopping anymore, the two shopping centres are deserted and full of nonsense shops and phone screen repair shacks. The nightlife is non existent or violent. There's a big Primark and last year a massive Poundland opened. Grim. The last remaining treasures- the market and the lanes will no doubt get flattened soon enough.
Based on that I wonder how much correlation there is between "prefer/hate internet shopping" and "my area is getting better/worse to live".
I suspect that the evisceration of local government over the last half century has rather more to do with the decline of provincial towns and cities.
To national government, they're essentially invisible outside of a couple of weeks round the general election. And 90% of what financial resources they do have is spent on things mandated by Whitehall.
London might be paradise to you southern softies, but get out of your bubble and head up the M1 and you'll find a different world. Loughborough. Got the university and not much else . Any bit of land/ empty building finds itself turned into student accommodation or bulldozed for student accommodation. The Carillion Shopping Centre has been the focal point of the Town Centre as long as I can remember. It's currently empty, shops having had all their tenancies terminated so the owners can knock it down and build an eight floor student accommodation block, right slap bang in the middle of the town. There's a planning wrangle currently going on. The massive Cineworld has closed and the restaurants and bars that were destined to open in the adjoining development never really happened- fully half the units have been empty since it was completed. Very few shops survive in the town longer than 6 months, unless it's fast food, Turkish barber or nail bar. Even the charity shops are moving out. We have no idea what a museum or art gallery is. Still, the empty shops do give the homeless some doorways to sleep in.
Tell me about it. Somebody took the little city I grew up in and loved and replaced it with a sweaty turd. Norwich is dying on its arse. There's no Thursday night late shopping anymore, the two shopping centres are deserted and full of nonsense shops and phone screen repair shacks. The nightlife is non existent or violent. There's a big Primark and last year a massive Poundland opened. Grim. The last remaining treasures- the market and the lanes will no doubt get flattened soon enough.
Based on that I wonder how much correlation there is between "prefer/hate internet shopping" and "my area is getting better/worse to live".
My view on it is that cities need footfall and long hours trading or to become entirely residential hubs. They cant do the current hybrid decline stuff
Tbh I can't see much difference between my local area (Worksop & villages to the north of) either in person in the Google photos from 2015 (2018 in person) to now. It does have a couple of Turkish barbers, but they do cut hair there, for cash
Ripon OTOH is having it's due to have its Booths replaced by a Tesco. Which is a mahoosive and material downgrade.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has said "we must act now" as he announced a national investigation into maternity care in England.
The "rapid" inquiry will urgently look at the worst-performing maternity and neonatal services in the country, including Leeds, Sussex, Gloucester, and Mid and South Essex.
Streeting investigating why he's shit at his job, rapidly
London might be paradise to you southern softies, but get out of your bubble and head up the M1 and you'll find a different world. Loughborough. Got the university and not much else . Any bit of land/ empty building finds itself turned into student accommodation or bulldozed for student accommodation. The Carillion Shopping Centre has been the focal point of the Town Centre as long as I can remember. It's currently empty, shops having had all their tenancies terminated so the owners can knock it down and build an eight floor student accommodation block, right slap bang in the middle of the town. There's a planning wrangle currently going on. The massive Cineworld has closed and the restaurants and bars that were destined to open in the adjoining development never really happened- fully half the units have been empty since it was completed. Very few shops survive in the town longer than 6 months, unless it's fast food, Turkish barber or nail bar. Even the charity shops are moving out. We have no idea what a museum or art gallery is. Still, the empty shops do give the homeless some doorways to sleep in.
Tell me about it. Somebody took the little city I grew up in and loved and replaced it with a sweaty turd. Norwich is dying on its arse. There's no Thursday night late shopping anymore, the two shopping centres are deserted and full of nonsense shops and phone screen repair shacks. The nightlife is non existent or violent. There's a big Primark and last year a massive Poundland opened. Grim. The last remaining treasures- the market and the lanes will no doubt get flattened soon enough.
Based on that I wonder how much correlation there is between "prefer/hate internet shopping" and "my area is getting better/worse to live".
Probably worse than that. We want to use internet shopping ourselves, because it's cheaper and more convenient. The bookshop on Gosport High Street was a good thing to have, but it was a bit rubbish. But we also want physical shops to be available- partly because we really want them when we want them (think back to March 2020), but also because shops make a town.
London might be paradise to you southern softies, but get out of your bubble and head up the M1 and you'll find a different world. Loughborough. Got the university and not much else . Any bit of land/ empty building finds itself turned into student accommodation or bulldozed for student accommodation. The Carillion Shopping Centre has been the focal point of the Town Centre as long as I can remember. It's currently empty, shops having had all their tenancies terminated so the owners can knock it down and build an eight floor student accommodation block, right slap bang in the middle of the town. There's a planning wrangle currently going on. The massive Cineworld has closed and the restaurants and bars that were destined to open in the adjoining development never really happened- fully half the units have been empty since it was completed. Very few shops survive in the town longer than 6 months, unless it's fast food, Turkish barber or nail bar. Even the charity shops are moving out. We have no idea what a museum or art gallery is. Still, the empty shops do give the homeless some doorways to sleep in.
Tell me about it. Somebody took the little city I grew up in and loved and replaced it with a sweaty turd. Norwich is dying on its arse. There's no Thursday night late shopping anymore, the two shopping centres are deserted and full of nonsense shops and phone screen repair shacks. The nightlife is non existent or violent. There's a big Primark and last year a massive Poundland opened. Grim. The last remaining treasures- the market and the lanes will no doubt get flattened soon enough.
Based on that I wonder how much correlation there is between "prefer/hate internet shopping" and "my area is getting better/worse to live".
I have this argument on local FB groups all the time. A shop will close, causing 50 people to moan and say they want this shop or that shop to move in. They forget that they'd rather shop on Temu.
By the way I’d define hyper-central quite narrowly, and place KX, Farringdon, Clerkenwell, Marylebone, Pimlico and the square mile outside it. Those are merely “central”
The actual City of London not in hyper-central London? Yes, if you take the point of view of the tourist. The places they might ideally want to stay and search on booking.com, before accepting they’ll need to be a small tube journey from the sites. Those extend only over a rectangle from roughly Marble Arch to Westminster Abbey to Covent Garden to Russell Square.
Comments
Also worth saying it was London prices for drinks and food. One pub has a branch in both Falmouth and St Ives and the same set of drinks were £2 more in St Ives.
Also I spent £100+ on 2 evening meals out for 2 and £35 on a lunch where I was the only one eating
Central London (the shoplifting hotspot of Camden aside
Out in the suburbs though the lack of investment in the public realm is showing - things are just shabbier, very much the case here in Havering - not terrible but clearly worse. Also town centres are mostly worse for the changes affecting everywhere, which Central London is largely shielded from, Croydon is definitely (even) worse than when I last went there in about 2017. Having said that Kingston seemed better recently than when I used to visit more regularly when I still had family there 10-15 years ago.
On property I have been waiting for a correction for most of my adult life and will believe it when I see it (and will welcome it).
Which makes for an interesting case study in "what is terrorism". Of course, "terrorism" has never had a simple definition. It's always been political.
“What puts me centre-stage, looking tough and fabulous, the world hanging on my every word?”
This is what drives all the decisions. It’s about today and tomorrow so by definition there can be no ‘strategy’, geopolitical, economic, or otherwise. How best to promote the show NOW. The long term is next week. It’s a waste of time looking for rationale beyond this because there isn’t any.
When I said the reason he would bomb Iran was to script a ‘situation room’ episode for the show (with accompanying heroic pics of him sitting there wearing that fucking stupid cap, having given The Order) I was being perfectly serious.
Also parts of outer London. Somewhere like North Finchley is even sadder than it was
Camden is roughly what it always was. Great wealth next to great grittiness
However many places have improved as you say. From Battersea to Kings X to Shoreditch etc
But really it’s not so much the “improvement” of neighbourhoods (or lack of), it’s the daily quality of life on the streets which has gone down, all over
All they can do is attack privately owned ships from other countries using Omani waters to transverse the gulf
The 1993 Bishopsgate bombing, the 1996 Manchester bombing and the 1992 Baltic Exchange bombing were the three terrorist attacks in Europe that inflicted the highest financial costs of all time. All were aimed at property, although all did have human casualties (deaths for two of them, no deaths for the Manchester bombing although a large number injured).
There are fans of Brussels out there, usually those who have lived there for a bit, but I’m not one of them.
The agent quoted £40k+! I was horrified and asked the agent how young locals managed.
Well spoken young chap, almost certainly not 'local' shrugged his shoulders and said "They don't; live with family. Or move away!"
We may like the outcome of the US actions, but us speaking up will achieve nothing so why use the diplomatic capital?
Its all so strikingly reminiscent of current times. What's interesting is when you move beyond the doomsayers, as Sandbrook does, it wasn't actually that bad. Were people better off in 1980 than in 1960? Undoubtedly. They had better houses, central heating, TV's , more stuff in general. And yet the air of decline was all around. Sandbrook points out that the real mallaise for Britain was that it was the first major industrial economy to start to move away from the traditional industries (coal, steel etc) to services, and so it looked like the 'sick man of Europe' mainly because it was the first country to undergo this process, not through an inherent problem.
The opening chapter resonates with me. We have so many people claiming national decline, and saying how awful it is, when at the same time arguably life ahs never been better for most people. Who among you would rather be living in the 80's again? Really?
One wonders what the future will bring. AI is clearly a challenge to many ways of earning a living. How far can it go? Will there be jobs in the future? How then does a society allocate wealth? How do you generate wealth?
Lots of questions, few answers. One thing I will add - interest in studying at University doesn't seem to be declining - we have seen record interest at our recent two Open Days. The University apocalypse has not yet started.
On top of that, the sort of centres that justified themselves by shopping (Romford, say) have largely become obsolete and we don't really want to admit the need to start again.
https://racecarsdirect.com/Advert/Details/151400/peugeot-308-tcr---european-hillclimb-champion
Those who don't believe it's happened to them will be the British equivalent of MAGA.
And 'blocking the strait' for more than a fairly short time is (probably) beyond Iran's capacity.
That said, you are spot on about areas like Dalston and Shoreditch. They were shitholes 20 years ago, were gentrifying a decade ago, and are now very nice indeed.
And different jurisdictions have different definitions - just as different countries have different popular understanding of what constitutes terrorism, which doesn't always coincide with their laws.
Edit - apropos of nothing I guess but its my Essex fog story lol
Funnily enough I was in Walpole Park in Ealing yesterday, but didn't venture further.
Some big wig in the Spectator is predicting that 80% of universities will shut within 10 years. That seems hyperbolic to me, but the direction is clear
Now with all the new housing developments, it's massively nicer, and with great restaurants
Then SW London along the Thames just leafily the same as it’s always been.
Back in the 60s in the industrial West Riding, I was not altogether infrequently late for school when dense yellow fog reduced car speeds to about 15mph.
Indeed most really big western cities have a declining quality of life. Perversely this is maybe why so many Brits and westerners don’t notice it
They rarely travel outside Western Europe/USA to see how different things can be. How much better. You DON’T have to walk around constantly scared your phone will be snatched
After all my favorite celebrity spot of all time is Stefan Dennis (for it was he off neighbours) by the needle exchange van behind centrepoint.
Edit to add and the surrounding areas now a private to the extent that if the drug addicts appeared in Covent Garden or St Giles they would be rapidly moved on
But, as per rcs1000, homelessness is up.
It’s not all bad by any means. But on the whole is daily urban life worse than 2015 - I’d say yes in terms of cleanliness, graffiti, high streets, nightlife, petty crime (and sexual crime). And that is “life” for most people
Right I’m down in Cornwall and the sun is shining. Time for a coffee at the Gylly cafe by the beach
https://x.com/SkyCricket/status/1937090772093763584
(Are student flats counted in housebuilding stats? They're too small for normal habitation by law so maybe not...)
I've never been afraid of using my phone in public, never had it snatched or known anyone who has.
I've not seen any robberies of stores. If I go into Greggs they have products on the shelves and if people pick them up, its to take it to the counter and pay for it, not to put in a bag and run away.
A big thing is high streets really struggling with massive numbers of empty stores, increasing general shabbiness*, etc, that isn't so prevalent in London / SE.
* except tagging, tagging is bloody everywhere in London.
He reckoned that the idea was that the student gentrify the locality, while paying off the original paper on the building. Then covert and sell. And use part of the money to build new student accommodation, not far away, in another dodgy bit.
Loughborough. Got the university and not much else . Any bit of land/ empty building finds itself turned into student accommodation or bulldozed for student accommodation.
The Carillion Shopping Centre has been the focal point of the Town Centre as long as I can remember. It's currently empty, shops having had all their tenancies terminated so the owners can knock it down and build an eight floor student accommodation block, right slap bang in the middle of the town. There's a planning wrangle currently going on.
The massive Cineworld has closed and the restaurants and bars that were destined to open in the adjoining development never really happened- fully half the units have been empty since it was completed. Very few shops survive in the town longer than 6 months, unless it's fast food, Turkish barber or nail bar. Even the charity shops are moving out.
We have no idea what a museum or art gallery is. Still, the empty shops do give the homeless some doorways to sleep in.
It must have been hideous a hundred years ago.
The clean air acts are some of the best legislation ever passed in Britain.
(*) Well, ten years ago.
IIRC, converting it for full domestic doesn’t trigger those rules.
I had the misfortune to change train in Stafford the other week, which as a kid I went to on quite a regular basis, since then its population has gone up, but bloody hell the town centre is a shithole. And people live there as its nicer than living in Stoke.
1. Leave ECHR.
2. Environmental vandalism.
3. Ostentatious cruelty toward immigrants, LGBTQ community and anybody not a hypertensive, white cismale.
4. Loads of flegs.
Now some areas have gotten worse sure: Oxford Street would be the classic example. And Victoria - surrounded on all sides by nice places - has somehow managed to keep declining.
I think a lot of this is Covid related: there used to be lots of people coming to the Victoria area for work. If they're not there, then there's no bustling restaurant scene to replace them. Likewise, people came to Oxford Street to shop. Now, give how good internet shopping is, why shop in person?
It's the areas with lots of new residential property that have done best: because those people moving into nice apartments want nice coffee shops and supermarkets and the like.
All new housing improves affordability. All construction improves supply and affordability is supply versus demand.
Hence my lifelong scepticism about bureacracy gone mad complaints.
There's a big Primark and last year a massive Poundland opened. Grim. The last remaining treasures- the market and the lanes will no doubt get flattened soon enough.
I think the village I live in is a very nice place to live. I'd give it 8.5 out of 10. Not perfect, but pleasant. I've just been to the dentist; a mile walk there along a quietish road with wide pavements, and a mile walk back through a country park. If I talk to people about the village, they agree it's a nice place to live. Perhaps because I'm positive about it.
But I'm not so braindead stupid as to think that everyone feels the same way. Occasionally on a village FB group someone will say: "I'm thinking of moving to the village. What is it like?" The responses are generally "It's great!". But you also get a few: "It's a hellhole; crime is everywhere and the kids are out of control!!!!!"
If you up to people and says: "Isn't this place an absolute hellhole compared to ten years ago, eh?", you'll get more people saying that it's a hellhole than if you say "Isn't this place lovely?"
It's a double edged sword. Obviously brings benefits, but also takes up housing, brings massive parking issues and there doesn't seem to be an end to the number of new accommodation blocks they need.
Some areas may well have been through the cycle a couple of times.
Indeed, it's probably healthy for a city to be like that.
Irrespective of planning regs.
Far too many developers try to squeeze the last half percentage of margin, imposing much greater costs down the line.
Because if they did, the answer is to build more housing. Which would upset lots of people.
The real answer is that 90% of all housing has been stolen by the Trans Gay Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs who are storing it in hyperspace. Once we deal with them, it will all pop back into reality. Then everyone can have a cheap flat.
Merchants come to Norwich to die
There were a lot in the dim and distant, though!
The "rapid" inquiry will urgently look at the worst-performing maternity and neonatal services in the country, including Leeds, Sussex, Gloucester, and Mid and South Essex.
To national government, they're essentially invisible outside of a couple of weeks round the general election.
And 90% of what financial resources they do have is spent on things mandated by Whitehall.
Ripon OTOH is having it's due to have its Booths replaced by a Tesco. Which is a mahoosive and material downgrade.
People are messed up.
The actual City of London not in hyper-central London? Yes, if you take the point of view of the tourist. The places they might ideally want to stay and search on booking.com, before accepting they’ll need to be a small tube journey from the sites. Those extend only over a rectangle from roughly Marble Arch to Westminster Abbey to Covent Garden to Russell Square.