London Rents Eating Up 57% of Twentysomethings’ Income(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
London Rents Eating Up 57% of Twentysomethings’ Income
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-13/london-rents-eating-up-57-of-twentysomethings-income-chart
7 comments
> You can try your luck elsewhere, but it's hard to think of where exactly
Huh? Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle have plenty of work, you get paid rather less (surprisingly not much less last 5 years - but that's been London rates falling rather than north rising), but keep significantly more in your pocket. The people and beer are nicer in the grim North too.
Aside from during the peak of dot con and y2k contract rate insanity I've avoided London like the plague. It's a great place to visit for a show, but live and work?
I never understood the appeal of earning 25% more, but having 50-70% less in your pocket after housing and travel. It's the only UK city where the pollution is palpable, and constant.
Huh? Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle have plenty of work, you get paid rather less (surprisingly not much less last 5 years - but that's been London rates falling rather than north rising), but keep significantly more in your pocket. The people and beer are nicer in the grim North too.
Aside from during the peak of dot con and y2k contract rate insanity I've avoided London like the plague. It's a great place to visit for a show, but live and work?
I never understood the appeal of earning 25% more, but having 50-70% less in your pocket after housing and travel. It's the only UK city where the pollution is palpable, and constant.
London is nice as long as you live on the outskirts.
When I first moved to London, I lived in Farringdon and then Marble Arch, and the first couple of years it was awesome to be able to just step outside the door and be in the centre of town (at Marble Arch I literally had two minutes walk to be on Oxford Street, or could cross the road and be in Hyde Park). But the pollution was certainly awful - it's the only place I've lived where your snot would be black at the end of the day. And then I moved to Barnes (South West London - very leafy, very affluent), but when we decided to buy it was too expensive, and we ended up moving to Croydon (zone 5, South). I don't think I'll ever move closer in towards the centre again. If I were to consider moving elsewhere, it'd be either further out, or along the edge of London somewhere along one of the major train lines.
You get the option of working in the centre when it makes sense, it's far more relaxing, greener, far less pollution, and far cheaper.
I can see the appeal of moving somewhere else entirely, but this is a decent compromise for people who want easy access to London but don't want all the downsides of the centre.
When I first moved to London, I lived in Farringdon and then Marble Arch, and the first couple of years it was awesome to be able to just step outside the door and be in the centre of town (at Marble Arch I literally had two minutes walk to be on Oxford Street, or could cross the road and be in Hyde Park). But the pollution was certainly awful - it's the only place I've lived where your snot would be black at the end of the day. And then I moved to Barnes (South West London - very leafy, very affluent), but when we decided to buy it was too expensive, and we ended up moving to Croydon (zone 5, South). I don't think I'll ever move closer in towards the centre again. If I were to consider moving elsewhere, it'd be either further out, or along the edge of London somewhere along one of the major train lines.
You get the option of working in the centre when it makes sense, it's far more relaxing, greener, far less pollution, and far cheaper.
I can see the appeal of moving somewhere else entirely, but this is a decent compromise for people who want easy access to London but don't want all the downsides of the centre.
Hm, if commuting, I prefer to live somewhere else entirely, the outskirts of London seem to have none of the advantages (places to go, things to do), but all the disadvantages.
It is close enough to have the places to go and things to do, and the high paid jobs, but far enough to not pay central London house prices. To me that's highly attractive. Especially now that I rarely need to commute.
25% more is a bit of an understatement.
A web developer outside of London could expect 40/50K pa where as in London you could earn 600 a day contracting.
That's 2-3 times the money, plus with so many jobs you don't have to worry about becoming trapped.
A web developer outside of London could expect 40/50K pa where as in London you could earn 600 a day contracting.
That's 2-3 times the money, plus with so many jobs you don't have to worry about becoming trapped.
Not really. Comparing contract with perm is not really a workable comparison.
There's plenty of web dev contracts in the North, but rates might be 400 - 500 a day.
In permanent roles the bump, if any, seems to be around 25%. If you're more junior in PHP the perm roles are similarly salaried in London as outside it (at least going on a friend who complained about this a lot a year or two ago).
There's plenty of web dev contracts in the North, but rates might be 400 - 500 a day.
In permanent roles the bump, if any, seems to be around 25%. If you're more junior in PHP the perm roles are similarly salaried in London as outside it (at least going on a friend who complained about this a lot a year or two ago).
To be fair, I live in Newcastle and I know people contracting for web dev here who charge 500 pounds/day. But then again, my partner is a salaried web dev and she makes 32k. Contracting does have its downsides though.
The contracts in London are often 6-12 months for big companies, for agencies less. However there are so many the is little risk of ever being without work.
A graduate developer at a finance company would earn over 40k...
A graduate developer at a finance company would earn over 40k...
There are so many now. The big risk with contracting is that when times get tough, suddenly everything dries up, while at the same time jumping ship and going back to permanent work gets hareder. If contracting, you need to factor in the risk of a recession by building up according reserves, so you need to make accordingly more in good times.
You certainly can still do extremely well, but the risk is certainly there.
You certainly can still do extremely well, but the risk is certainly there.
I got the hell out of London ten years ago, moved to the south West, started a web development company.
We're now 40 people and we're struggling to hire developers fast enough - we mopped up the local talent, and we're now hiring EU nationals mostly, as while we offer a relocation package etc., the cost of living here is a fraction of London - but folks coming from London usually want a London salary - and aren't willing to negotiate. So they stay in London and moan about their rent trap, while most of our employees now own their homes.
Shrug. Inertia's a bitch.
We're now 40 people and we're struggling to hire developers fast enough - we mopped up the local talent, and we're now hiring EU nationals mostly, as while we offer a relocation package etc., the cost of living here is a fraction of London - but folks coming from London usually want a London salary - and aren't willing to negotiate. So they stay in London and moan about their rent trap, while most of our employees now own their homes.
Shrug. Inertia's a bitch.
"If you're tired of London, you're tired of life" is the usual response to that. Preferences differ. I'd hate to live in London for the long term (I'm probably tired of life) but I have friends who live there, love it, and wouldn't leave unless they absolutely had to. The rent is just something you have to put up with.
That quote is from the 18th century.
Things change.
If you're tired of London that is because it's overcrowded, it takes forever to commute, it's noisy, it's expensive and it's required of your to get at least tipsy every Friday.
If you're tired of London that is because it's overcrowded, it takes forever to commute, it's noisy, it's expensive and it's required of your to get at least tipsy every Friday.
> now own their homes
Most londoners don't consider that a plus if it's in the middle of nowhere with no culture or anything to do.
Most londoners don't consider that a plus if it's in the middle of nowhere with no culture or anything to do.
And most Londoners consider Bristol to be the middle of nowhere. I rest my case.
Would like to move to Bristol, but doesn’t seem to be enough contracting work doing python to sustain a career.
> with no culture
Everywhere has a culture. It's more accurate to say you don't appreciate other cultures.
Everywhere has a culture. It's more accurate to say you don't appreciate other cultures.
Most londoners I know who rent constantly whine about how they can't afford a deposit (yet are unwilling to consider moving further out than zone 2 to save on rent so they'll be able to save up for one).
The gains from moving further out are all priced in through increased cost of public transport, so on top of the lower quality of living and longer commute, you generally end up paying the same.
Some places that is true, but not nearly all. The "premium" I used to pay to commute in to central London vs. if I'd needed only a zone 1 travel card used to be about 600 pounds a year. 50 pounds a month. For that I was able to get a 3 bed house with garden paying less a month than co-workers renting tiny one bed flats or even a room in a flat-share in many cases.
When I moved out to zone 5 from zone 2 (well technically 3, but my best route was get the bus to a zone 2 station), the combined cost of the premium on my travel card and mortgage/insurance/other costs was still lower than the 2 bedroom flat we used to rent.
The thing is, there is nowhere "cheap" in zone 1 or 2 that people with options want to live in, but once you get further out, you have a lot more choice. I certainly could end up paying more - I'm within a short bus ride from some of the most affluent areas in England (parts of South Croydon is full of large estates that are dirt cheap by London standards, yet within commutable distance to central London).
The quality living for me is far higher here, and the travel distance to central London is low enough that when I need to commute in I often had shorter commute than people who lived in zone 1 or two but happened to live on the "wrong" tube line.
When I moved out to zone 5 from zone 2 (well technically 3, but my best route was get the bus to a zone 2 station), the combined cost of the premium on my travel card and mortgage/insurance/other costs was still lower than the 2 bedroom flat we used to rent.
The thing is, there is nowhere "cheap" in zone 1 or 2 that people with options want to live in, but once you get further out, you have a lot more choice. I certainly could end up paying more - I'm within a short bus ride from some of the most affluent areas in England (parts of South Croydon is full of large estates that are dirt cheap by London standards, yet within commutable distance to central London).
The quality living for me is far higher here, and the travel distance to central London is low enough that when I need to commute in I often had shorter commute than people who lived in zone 1 or two but happened to live on the "wrong" tube line.
You can't post that without contact details in your profile.
> I do wonder whether people feel trapped.
Whether they feel trapped I'm not sure but a girl I used to date worked in the city and she was definitely trapped.
She worked for a large bank in the finance sector and felt she had to play keep up with her colleagues and more importantly her managers on the social scene. This meant that she would often go out to dinner/drinks a couple of times a week. Obviously you need to dress smartly to work in the city, so had a clothes bill too. Lunches, make up, hair dos, nails, yoga and so on. It all adds up
She was probably earning somewhere in the region of £50k, which isn't bad I guess, but used credit cards and loans to keep up appearances.
I felt that she was locked in, with no choice but to continue working in London to earn the money to pay the bills she couldn't afford.
Whether they feel trapped I'm not sure but a girl I used to date worked in the city and she was definitely trapped.
She worked for a large bank in the finance sector and felt she had to play keep up with her colleagues and more importantly her managers on the social scene. This meant that she would often go out to dinner/drinks a couple of times a week. Obviously you need to dress smartly to work in the city, so had a clothes bill too. Lunches, make up, hair dos, nails, yoga and so on. It all adds up
She was probably earning somewhere in the region of £50k, which isn't bad I guess, but used credit cards and loans to keep up appearances.
I felt that she was locked in, with no choice but to continue working in London to earn the money to pay the bills she couldn't afford.
This is incredible representative of the London I know. 20-somethings earning huge salaries compared to other people of their age around the country, but with a much lower quality of life once you remove the 'social' (drinks/eating out) aspect.
I was holding down four jobs to "keep up" - the day job, freelance development, nightclub impresario, electronics refurbishment and resale.
It worked. I found myself rubbing shoulders with a-listers, throwing parties for royalty, launching gallery exhibitions, renting out the likes of Chinawhite, Boujis, roof gardens, raffles, blah blah.
Then I realised my head was disappearing up my own arse, that I was always exhausted, that I wasn't actually enjoying this, that I had a cocaine problem, and I hated these shallow, boring people who I was becoming one of.
Sometimes the only way to discover the true nature of something or yourself is to take it to its absolute extreme. You can muddle along in the middle forever, until you drown or just get bored of swimming.
It worked. I found myself rubbing shoulders with a-listers, throwing parties for royalty, launching gallery exhibitions, renting out the likes of Chinawhite, Boujis, roof gardens, raffles, blah blah.
Then I realised my head was disappearing up my own arse, that I was always exhausted, that I wasn't actually enjoying this, that I had a cocaine problem, and I hated these shallow, boring people who I was becoming one of.
Sometimes the only way to discover the true nature of something or yourself is to take it to its absolute extreme. You can muddle along in the middle forever, until you drown or just get bored of swimming.
[deleted]
London is perfectly fine on a 50k salary, provided you don't try to keep up with people who earn 3-4 times as much. It sounds to me that she was on an entry level or clerical/secretarial position (nothing wrong with that), but that's not what is usually associated with people who work in finance. The solution there is not necessarily to move out of London, but simply realize that in banks in London you are going to be surrounded by people earning >150k (and often much more) and there is no point in trying to keep up with them on a 50k budget.
My ex works in HR in a major bank. You'll be surrounded by people earning >1.5m, who complain about how they're going to make their ends meet because their bonus this year was only 150k (my ex has had to deal with that exact complaint; said person was worried how he was going to afford the second nanny).
I absolutely agree with you, but I also regularly get to hear about the pressure people are under to keep up appearances, and I'm not surprised a lot of younger people feel they can't resist it.
It's made worse by the toothless UK working time restrictions (look forward to those being gutted even more with an EU exit) that are abuse relentlessly in law and finance and result in staff that basically don't have time to recognise how messed up their lives are and/or time to find a way out. The amount of misery my ex has dealt with both personally (she is now in HR because while it's still tough, it's a walk in the park compared to her previous job as finance lawyer at one of the magic circle firms), and in her current job (including people regularly having breakdowns in the office at rates I've personally never seen anywhere I've worked) makes me totally unsurprised at younger employees at these places having problems finding ways to cope.
I absolutely agree with you, but I also regularly get to hear about the pressure people are under to keep up appearances, and I'm not surprised a lot of younger people feel they can't resist it.
It's made worse by the toothless UK working time restrictions (look forward to those being gutted even more with an EU exit) that are abuse relentlessly in law and finance and result in staff that basically don't have time to recognise how messed up their lives are and/or time to find a way out. The amount of misery my ex has dealt with both personally (she is now in HR because while it's still tough, it's a walk in the park compared to her previous job as finance lawyer at one of the magic circle firms), and in her current job (including people regularly having breakdowns in the office at rates I've personally never seen anywhere I've worked) makes me totally unsurprised at younger employees at these places having problems finding ways to cope.
> It's made worse by the toothless UK working time restrictions (look forward to those being gutted even more with an EU exit) that are abuse relentlessly in law and finance (...)
I assume you're referring to the EU Working Time Directive, which pretty much every major employer requires their staff to opt-out of when starting a new job?
It's a pointless EU law that just adds more paperwork to the recruitment process.
I assume you're referring to the EU Working Time Directive, which pretty much every major employer requires their staff to opt-out of when starting a new job?
It's a pointless EU law that just adds more paperwork to the recruitment process.
It is with very limited exceptions illegal to require your staff to opt out, even in the UK, and the same restrictions applies to taking punitive actions against staff that chooses to opt back in.
EDIT: For my part I've never worked for anyone asking for an opt-out, and I'd never sign an opt-out, and I would sue if I suspected an employer punished me for not signing an opt-out.
EDIT2: Here's the UK government advice on the opt-out [1]. Note: "Your employer can ask you to opt out, but you can’t be sacked or treated unfairly for refusing to do so. You can opt out for a certain period or indefinitely. It must be voluntary and in writing." Additionally there are exceptions for a very small set of types of workers [2].
[1] https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours/weekly-maxim...
[2] https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours/overview
EDIT: For my part I've never worked for anyone asking for an opt-out, and I'd never sign an opt-out, and I would sue if I suspected an employer punished me for not signing an opt-out.
EDIT2: Here's the UK government advice on the opt-out [1]. Note: "Your employer can ask you to opt out, but you can’t be sacked or treated unfairly for refusing to do so. You can opt out for a certain period or indefinitely. It must be voluntary and in writing." Additionally there are exceptions for a very small set of types of workers [2].
[1] https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours/weekly-maxim...
[2] https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours/overview
Yes, that's the law, but as I mention in response to another comment, you only defer to the letter of the law if you have/want an adversarial relationship with an employer.
Most major employers include the waiver as part of their onboarding process, and if you refuse to sign, although legally they cannot do anything, in practice you're going to start off on the wrong foot with that employer.
Likewise, if you turn around to your manager and refuse to work more than 48 hours (having not signed a waiver), although legally they cannot punish you for that, it's hardly going to help your career.
Most major employers include the waiver as part of their onboarding process, and if you refuse to sign, although legally they cannot do anything, in practice you're going to start off on the wrong foot with that employer.
Likewise, if you turn around to your manager and refuse to work more than 48 hours (having not signed a waiver), although legally they cannot punish you for that, it's hardly going to help your career.
If an employer is asking me to opt out, they have already started off on the wrong foot with me, in which case I'm very pleased to have legal protections.
If the UK hadn't demanded the opt-out it wouldn't be pointless at all.
A restriction on working hours is only going to be useful if you have, or aim to create, an adversarial relationship with your employer.
People are, by and large, aware of what they are getting into when they start a new job, and working hours are a factor in most remuneration calculations.
If the working hours are simply too much for you, then you should find a different job.
People are, by and large, aware of what they are getting into when they start a new job, and working hours are a factor in most remuneration calculations.
If the working hours are simply too much for you, then you should find a different job.
I'd say that, if the employer doesn't cover a need with a full-time employee working a healthy amount of time, he/she should hire another employee, full or partial time.
Thus, unemployment is reduced, more money is put into the economy and the full automation apocalypse is delayed for a little bit. And if another employee can't be paid, then that business is not really viable and should close.
Thus, unemployment is reduced, more money is put into the economy and the full automation apocalypse is delayed for a little bit. And if another employee can't be paid, then that business is not really viable and should close.
And for anyone expecting shorter working hours to lead to the apocalypse: They should consider that France, the canonical UK example of "too strict" working time restrictions, for the vast majority of the last 50 years or so have had a higher GDP per capita than the UK (their GDP per capita was lower for a few recent years, but then they overtook again).
If you actually believe this, count yourself lucky to be so privileged. Given all the shit I've heard from HR people over the years, it is a hopelessly naive viewpoint.
£50k is a pretty awkward salary to live on in London.
It's enough to live quite comfortably in a house/flat share, or if you share a single bed apartment with a partner, but if you live independently (in a studio or single bed) you're still firmly in "mere existence" territory, unlikely to be able to add much to savings each month.
It's enough to live quite comfortably in a house/flat share, or if you share a single bed apartment with a partner, but if you live independently (in a studio or single bed) you're still firmly in "mere existence" territory, unlikely to be able to add much to savings each month.
£50k after taxes (and student loan) is ~£2750/month.
If you're prepared to live South of the river (which contrary to popular belief isn't the end of the world) flat prices are in my area (SE4) around £800-1200/month which if you're sharing can still leave you over £1500/month disposable cash.
If you're prepared to live South of the river (which contrary to popular belief isn't the end of the world) flat prices are in my area (SE4) around £800-1200/month which if you're sharing can still leave you over £1500/month disposable cash.
For a decent one bed flat anywhere in Zone 2/3 you're looking at £1500pcm. Let's be charitable and say that includes bills and council tax.
That leaves £1250pcm disposable. At least £100 will go on a Travelcard. If you're sensible, you'll be putting some money away in a pension as well. Let's say another £100 of net income.
That really doesn't leave much to lead a lifestyle commensurate with a young professional earning £50k. Yes, you can scrimp and save, but even then you're not going to be putting more than £500 away in savings each month.
At that rate, it would take you upwards of 10 years to save even a measly 10% deposit on a £600k property (which, at this rate, would get you an even worse one bed flat than the one you're renting).
That leaves £1250pcm disposable. At least £100 will go on a Travelcard. If you're sensible, you'll be putting some money away in a pension as well. Let's say another £100 of net income.
That really doesn't leave much to lead a lifestyle commensurate with a young professional earning £50k. Yes, you can scrimp and save, but even then you're not going to be putting more than £500 away in savings each month.
At that rate, it would take you upwards of 10 years to save even a measly 10% deposit on a £600k property (which, at this rate, would get you an even worse one bed flat than the one you're renting).
Not sure what you can get for £800 a month, but I doubt it's a flat, even in Brighton it will cost you that much, plus the travel expense.
Plenty of flats in South London for that price:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/find.html?search...
Cheapest 1 bedroom I could find is 725/month.
Here's a 1 bedroom for 750/month ca. 10 minutes walk (or a choice of 3 buses) from East Croydon station, zone 5. The 50/month drop from 800 makes up for the majority of the increased cost over a zone 1 travel card:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-4164892...
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/find.html?search...
Cheapest 1 bedroom I could find is 725/month.
Here's a 1 bedroom for 750/month ca. 10 minutes walk (or a choice of 3 buses) from East Croydon station, zone 5. The 50/month drop from 800 makes up for the majority of the increased cost over a zone 1 travel card:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-4164892...
That first property is an HMO. It looks like they've turned a small house into five 'studio flats', with a tiny communal kitchen.
The second, judging by the photos, is a small living room which has been converted into an 'open plan' studio. Doesn't even look like there's room for a double bed.
Both are in Croydon, so you get all the downsides of living in London, with virtually none of the upsides.
There are doubtless other catches to both properties, as decent properties never make it online.
Neither property is remotely commensurate with a young professional earning £50k.
The second, judging by the photos, is a small living room which has been converted into an 'open plan' studio. Doesn't even look like there's room for a double bed.
Both are in Croydon, so you get all the downsides of living in London, with virtually none of the upsides.
There are doubtless other catches to both properties, as decent properties never make it online.
Neither property is remotely commensurate with a young professional earning £50k.
The first one is not one property, but two pages of results with a wide range of different properties. I don't know which one you are getting first - the one I'm getting first does not match your description.
The second one is a one bedroom flat. The last picture is the bedroom, at the back of the house. I live down the road from that row of flats. They're not fantastic, but they're proper 1 bedroom flats of perfectly adequate quality.
> Both are in Croydon, so you get all the downsides of living in London, with virtually none of the upsides.
From that flat it'd take ~25 minutes to be at London Victoria. ~25-30 minutes to be at London Bridge. ~20 minutes to Clapham Junction. Having lived about as centrally as you can in London, yes, it takes you longer to get "to the centre". But if you are going somewhere specific, it's not at all given that you won't get there in the same amount of time.
> Neither property is remotely commensurate with a young professional earning £50k.
In London, they can choose between something like that, and have money to save and invest for the future, or they can spend all their money now, and screw themselves over. A "young professional" who can't deal with living like that for a few years does not have any sympathy from me - they are spoiled.
The second one is a one bedroom flat. The last picture is the bedroom, at the back of the house. I live down the road from that row of flats. They're not fantastic, but they're proper 1 bedroom flats of perfectly adequate quality.
> Both are in Croydon, so you get all the downsides of living in London, with virtually none of the upsides.
From that flat it'd take ~25 minutes to be at London Victoria. ~25-30 minutes to be at London Bridge. ~20 minutes to Clapham Junction. Having lived about as centrally as you can in London, yes, it takes you longer to get "to the centre". But if you are going somewhere specific, it's not at all given that you won't get there in the same amount of time.
> Neither property is remotely commensurate with a young professional earning £50k.
In London, they can choose between something like that, and have money to save and invest for the future, or they can spend all their money now, and screw themselves over. A "young professional" who can't deal with living like that for a few years does not have any sympathy from me - they are spoiled.
There's a TV miniseries about that very subject called Wired.
I think using percentages obscures the actual numbers. My experience is that in London the money left at the end of the month may be a smaller percentage of your salary than it would be elsewhere - but it's more money, which is what matters.
There are plenty of areas within London that comes out better. Croydon, for example. Zone 5. Still expensive if you need to get in to zone 1, but property is far cheaper, helped by an unwarranted bad reputation (Croydon is safer than most of the central boroughs of London, for example, and incomes are above the London average).
A large part of the issue is that younger people are chasing the top jobs in London without being willing to deal with typical London commutes. I have had plenty of co-workers who insisted on living in zone 1 or 2 because they could not bear the idea of moving out to a place like Croydon, despite knowing I was paying less on a 3 bedroom house with a garden than the typical cost of a studio in the areas they have chosen to live in.
In fact, I pay less on my mortgage now for that 3 bed house with a garden than I used to pay for one room in a flat share in zone 1 when I first moved here 14 years ago. Sure, it takes me 45 minutes to get to a central London train station. But I'm 20 minutes walk from one of the largest commercial centres in the UK (Croydon has the 3rd or 4th largest shopping area in South East England).
I have a hard time feeling sympathy for most of these people. Sure, there are lots of people that genuinely struggle in London, but the high prices in large parts of London largely reflect that people willingly put an extremely high premium of being within minutes of a central tube station.
A large part of the issue is that younger people are chasing the top jobs in London without being willing to deal with typical London commutes. I have had plenty of co-workers who insisted on living in zone 1 or 2 because they could not bear the idea of moving out to a place like Croydon, despite knowing I was paying less on a 3 bedroom house with a garden than the typical cost of a studio in the areas they have chosen to live in.
In fact, I pay less on my mortgage now for that 3 bed house with a garden than I used to pay for one room in a flat share in zone 1 when I first moved here 14 years ago. Sure, it takes me 45 minutes to get to a central London train station. But I'm 20 minutes walk from one of the largest commercial centres in the UK (Croydon has the 3rd or 4th largest shopping area in South East England).
I have a hard time feeling sympathy for most of these people. Sure, there are lots of people that genuinely struggle in London, but the high prices in large parts of London largely reflect that people willingly put an extremely high premium of being within minutes of a central tube station.
Note that a lot folks genuinely enjoy living in large cities.
There are other large cities. There are even small cities which grant all the amenities and few of the drawbacks of their larger brethren.
Not all the amenities. Where else has the same range of bands playing as frequently as in London? The same range of stage plays? Where else can you find such big communities for even quite obscure hobbies? (I play Netrunner)
Brighton, bristol, etc.
[deleted]
> "You can try your luck elsewhere, but it's hard to think of where exactly, and you know for a fact there's this huge network that's the big city."
Depends on what type of work you're looking for, but there's plenty of IT jobs along the M4 corridor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_corridor
I'd also suggest looking into Oxford, Cambridge and Manchester.
Depends on what type of work you're looking for, but there's plenty of IT jobs along the M4 corridor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_corridor
I'd also suggest looking into Oxford, Cambridge and Manchester.
And Bristol and Bath, and even Cornwall where tech grants grow on trees - honestly, demonstrate a half decent idea and they'll match your investment up to £100k.
There are huge incentives for technology workers and entrepreneurs outside of London, but those already in London are trapped within its diamond dome - I left for good a few days after realising I hadn't been outside of the m25, other than abroad, in several years.
There are huge incentives for technology workers and entrepreneurs outside of London, but those already in London are trapped within its diamond dome - I left for good a few days after realising I hadn't been outside of the m25, other than abroad, in several years.
I run a software company and our MD is the queen of government grant (she's ex-local government). Interesting to hear that tech grants grow on trees in your neck of the woods - can I e-mail you a couple of questions?
Cornwall isn't my neck of the woods - I just know that my retail clients there have often paid for our services through a government grant. I think it's EU money intended to stimulate growth in remote areas.
Right - okay interesting I'll get my Google-fu on
Bristol and Bath are in the M4 corridor.
Out of interest, what sort of employees are you looking to hire at the moment?
Out of interest, what sort of employees are you looking to hire at the moment?
Frontend and backend (php7) engineers. Modern stack, aws.
Also Brighton is quite nice. Good amount of tech jobs, awesome music/culture scene and it is quite close to London, making it possible to commute daily.
It's good, though the jobs aren't hugely varied, there is quite a lot of php, there used to be a lot of flash (I assume they have moved to JS now).
Techwise a little bit of a monoculture, though maybe that is the same as the rest of the UK?
Techwise a little bit of a monoculture, though maybe that is the same as the rest of the UK?
Thats right, but there is also big game industry around the town and quite some high tech stuff (I used to work for company making embedded databases in aerospace/defence market) and hardware companies.
I live in Cambridge. The price/wage ratio is becoming even worse here.
I'm only in London twice a month, and I still pay ~£2000 a year for train tickets to cover an 80 mile journey due to having to travel at peak times. The concentration of jobs in London, for as far as I can see no particularly good reason, is utterly frustrating.
In related news, if anyone is looking for a 100% remote Ruby (and willing to learn most other things) developer, get in touch.
In related news, if anyone is looking for a 100% remote Ruby (and willing to learn most other things) developer, get in touch.
... and the rest! I'm looking at commuting from the Midlands to London and the annual season ticket is pushing £8k!
Solution:
people: get the hell out of there.
companies: make more remote job positions.
people: get the hell out of there.
companies: make more remote job positions.
I think remote job positions are the way forward. However, I think we're going to need an entire generation of management to get out of the way before BigCos in the city start to take this approach mainstream.
Startups are somewhat more open to remote workers, but even then I've had to be in the office anywhere from twice a week to twice a month. My aim at some point is to completely remove the commute from my life, but at this rate I'm going to have to start my own company to do so.
It always amaze me, how companies at London resist remote work. I did returned back to Czech republic (want to be closer to family as I am having kids now) and jobs, once plenty, dried out very quickly, even when I am willing to commute to London biweekly and even willing to spend extended time there.
I assume it's because they could get a local developer in Eastern Europe, India or South America for a fraction of the London price.
You want to have your cake and eat it ;)
I work with people who commute from Europe 3/4 days a week, but then they have to factor in plane tickets, a small flat or room etc
You want to have your cake and eat it ;)
I work with people who commute from Europe 3/4 days a week, but then they have to factor in plane tickets, a small flat or room etc
I don't think it is about the price, maybe it is about the contractor market I was in, who knows.
I don't really mind, there are tons of opportunities around. There are tons of companies willing to hire people remote all around EU, UK and US and the pay is basically same like London, not even factoring the living costs.
I don't really mind, there are tons of opportunities around. There are tons of companies willing to hire people remote all around EU, UK and US and the pay is basically same like London, not even factoring the living costs.
companies: if you don't want to do remote, then you have to pay more in salaries
I know it's madness isn't it? That companies will pay a premium to have bums on seats in an expensive office in the middle of the most expensive cities in the world.
Maybe it's madness. Or maybe they actually get enough value out of it to be worth what they pay.
I suspect it's a little from column A and a little from column B.
Not all employees can work remotely for sure, but I suspect if they were to audit the various teams they employ they could pick out some that can in fact work from home and save the company overhead in the process.
Not all employees can work remotely for sure, but I suspect if they were to audit the various teams they employ they could pick out some that can in fact work from home and save the company overhead in the process.
Well going solo is always more expensive so I am not really surprised or dismayed. The rapid rise is an issue but usually can be traced back to some over zealous restriction on what can be built and where.
Cities have expensive housing because those who own housing either want to keep their property values up or don't want a different class of people near them. They also tend to be very good at communicating the need by misrepresenting the reasons, hide behind protecting historic area, quality of life, environment, and such.
Cities have expensive housing because those who own housing either want to keep their property values up or don't want a different class of people near them. They also tend to be very good at communicating the need by misrepresenting the reasons, hide behind protecting historic area, quality of life, environment, and such.
Caveat: I'm the OpenRent Founder.
I would dispute the research slightly, not only is CountryWide data probably not the best out there (they'll deal with higher end vs. huge non-"high street agent" market), but grouping all of London together will be massively skewed by the unbelievably high rental values in prime central london.
That's not to say London isn't expensive, and a big chunk of income goes towards it, but in terms of the actual percentages - I'd take it with a pinch of salt.
Most referencing companies will look for 2.5x rent -> gross salary. So if you earn 30k annual salary, you can afford 1k per month on rent. If you look at:
https://listentotaxman.com/30000?plan=0
You'll be taking home roughly £1,950. So that's roughly 50% of take home going on rent (54% if you're repaying student loans). Anything higher than that, and a referencing company won't pass you - so it seems odd CountryWide are suggesting their average is 57%.
I would dispute the research slightly, not only is CountryWide data probably not the best out there (they'll deal with higher end vs. huge non-"high street agent" market), but grouping all of London together will be massively skewed by the unbelievably high rental values in prime central london.
That's not to say London isn't expensive, and a big chunk of income goes towards it, but in terms of the actual percentages - I'd take it with a pinch of salt.
Most referencing companies will look for 2.5x rent -> gross salary. So if you earn 30k annual salary, you can afford 1k per month on rent. If you look at:
https://listentotaxman.com/30000?plan=0
You'll be taking home roughly £1,950. So that's roughly 50% of take home going on rent (54% if you're repaying student loans). Anything higher than that, and a referencing company won't pass you - so it seems odd CountryWide are suggesting their average is 57%.
I should think the vast majority of twenty-somethings in London on £30k+ salaries are repaying student loans, so you'll be taking the 54% figure.
Of course - but I'm taking the top-end / maximum eligible rent, whereas the article is talking about averages, which are unlikely to be accurate in relation to what the majority of people are paying as a % of disposable.
You are assuming, of course, that landlords stick to conservative affordability limits and turn down willing tenants who fail the test, even by a small margin.
I agree this dataset is not ideal for these sort of calculations, but the figures are supported by my anecdotal experience.
I agree this dataset is not ideal for these sort of calculations, but the figures are supported by my anecdotal experience.
I am not assuming - we reference more tenants than any other rental company in the UK and know how a reference decision impacts a tenancy going ahead (it has a massive impact). We also know how many landlords order references (again, nearly all).
I kind of wish the data presented was more thorough, but that's probably because I'm too close to the industry - the headline is certainly catchy, and the comparison over time certainly more interesting, I just wanted give a heads up about the actual % figure not being representative.
I kind of wish the data presented was more thorough, but that's probably because I'm too close to the industry - the headline is certainly catchy, and the comparison over time certainly more interesting, I just wanted give a heads up about the actual % figure not being representative.
It's only going to get worse, everything new built in London (very very small studios/1 bed flats) cost about £600k+ in the area I live in. Property developers are laughing.
Not for long. There's a glut at the very high end >£1m and prices are already dropping fast. This will only get worse when the foreign money dumps all its empty "investments" on the market.
The high end >£600k will follow.
I'd guess prices in the cheaper brackets will remain stable unless there's a big rate rise, because they're kept inflated by buy-to-let.
But landlords with big mortgages are in a precarious position after the tax changes, and it won't take much for them to start losing money.
The rental income on a typical BTL with an 80% mortgage used to be just £2k a year, now it's less than half that. Mortgage relief is dropping already, so expect to see some changes.
The high end >£600k will follow.
I'd guess prices in the cheaper brackets will remain stable unless there's a big rate rise, because they're kept inflated by buy-to-let.
But landlords with big mortgages are in a precarious position after the tax changes, and it won't take much for them to start losing money.
The rental income on a typical BTL with an 80% mortgage used to be just £2k a year, now it's less than half that. Mortgage relief is dropping already, so expect to see some changes.
Probably the only good reason for anyone to vote to leave the EU is to reduce demand on housing stock.
There is a vast amount of empty housing in this country. There are places where you can still buy a street of habitable homes for under £100k.
There is even a huge amount of vacant property in London, most of it owned by large landlords who don't need the incremental income and associated hassle, as just sitting on vacant properties waiting for the market to rise is enough.
No, the problem is not migrants placing demand on housing stock - it is those that are telling you these fabrications, and the completely broken housing market that they built while you and I were still suckling our mothers' teats.
There is even a huge amount of vacant property in London, most of it owned by large landlords who don't need the incremental income and associated hassle, as just sitting on vacant properties waiting for the market to rise is enough.
No, the problem is not migrants placing demand on housing stock - it is those that are telling you these fabrications, and the completely broken housing market that they built while you and I were still suckling our mothers' teats.
If housing prices didn't rise then nobody would speculate. The foreign investments are just the symptom amplifying the original problem.
House prices rises are engineered. The latest bubble was created by offering huge tax breaks to landlords who would take on a mortgage on buy-to-let property.
This is easy money for the banks. They get most of the rental income in mortgage payments on a secured loan, while using the landlords as agents.
Foreign investors go where the bubbles are, and leave when the bubbles pop - which the London bubble is doing now.
Anyone who got in after 2008 made out like a bandit. But the party is over now, and we could be moving into hangover territory.
This is easy money for the banks. They get most of the rental income in mortgage payments on a secured loan, while using the landlords as agents.
Foreign investors go where the bubbles are, and leave when the bubbles pop - which the London bubble is doing now.
Anyone who got in after 2008 made out like a bandit. But the party is over now, and we could be moving into hangover territory.
A house's primary purpose is to provide housing. Speculation by capital should be the lowest priority of anyone's concern while formulating a housing strategy.
Are you sure about that? What about the 1 million 'immigrants' that may all of a sudden have to leave the South of Spain, South of France, Ireland, etc.
It's a possibility that most of those British expats would have to come back to the UK. Most of them don't contribute much to those countries (other than spending as a pensioner, using the local health-care or having low qualified jobs).
It's a possibility that most of those British expats would have to come back to the UK. Most of them don't contribute much to those countries (other than spending as a pensioner, using the local health-care or having low qualified jobs).
I was talking to a Spanish friend of mine about the same thing. They thought the Spanish government would be quick to sign some kind of agreement to keep expats there, as many of them are pensioners and who function as a kind of cash injection into the Spanish economy.
Well, that's exactly what immigrants do in the UK (contribute more than they take by certain metrics [0]), ... but it doesn't stop the hostility in the media.
In Spain the perception is that Brits in the south are low qualified and old and that they have driven up the price of housing with their real estate speculation. When young, they are perceived as violent and disrespectful (probably the image created by short-term young binge-drinking tourists). It's certainly prejudice and first impressions, but that's the kind of irrational reactions you could see after a UK exit if Spain is struggling with its own economy.
I had heard the opposite statement, by the way, that they took more from the healthcare than they contributed ... but my google-fu failed me. Do you have a reference? (I don't know what the answer is either way)
[0] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29910497
In Spain the perception is that Brits in the south are low qualified and old and that they have driven up the price of housing with their real estate speculation. When young, they are perceived as violent and disrespectful (probably the image created by short-term young binge-drinking tourists). It's certainly prejudice and first impressions, but that's the kind of irrational reactions you could see after a UK exit if Spain is struggling with its own economy.
I had heard the opposite statement, by the way, that they took more from the healthcare than they contributed ... but my google-fu failed me. Do you have a reference? (I don't know what the answer is either way)
[0] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29910497
> Well, that's exactly what immigrants do in the UK (contribute more than they take by certain metrics [0]), ... but it doesn't stop the hostility in the media.
Counter-argument to that is that immigrants are simply crowding out British citizens (particularly young people, huge numbers of which are unemployed, or significantly underemployed) in the jobs market.
It is effectively jobs that make the contribution, whether they are filled by British citizens or EU nationals.
Counter-argument to that is that immigrants are simply crowding out British citizens (particularly young people, huge numbers of which are unemployed, or significantly underemployed) in the jobs market.
It is effectively jobs that make the contribution, whether they are filled by British citizens or EU nationals.
I'm from Spain and the argument I hear most is the opposite: they use expensive resources (health-care, which in Spain was universally free, with some limitations now after the cuts), pay no taxes, and put just a little bit of money on the bottom end of the economy (restaurants, service, overdevelopment of coast, etc.) This is in contrast with the kind of migrants that Spain exports, mostly productive tax-paying young people with university degrees. But we can't blame brits for this imbalance (and I'd always argue for more open borders not less). It's spaniards that since Franco times and still nowadays mistake easy money in tourism for development, and we hardly know what else to do nowadays.
No. Westminster government has been obsessed with London as a finance centre to the exclusion of the rest of the country. Leaving the EU will only make things worse in London.
Right. Not calculating with the price rise of _everything else_, especially food.
Well, house prices will go down as the economy completely tanks.
This is actually touted as a positive and a negative by the respective camps.
If the UK leaves the EU, then it may become even an even more attractive safe haven for foreign-capital investments, given that the whole point of BREXIT is the limit the reach of the EU authorities.
What it should do is give the UK government more control over if they want to make it more or less attractive. Which way they actually turn that lever if it comes down to it is very much an open question, and probably dependent on the results from the next election. Personally I'm not convinced the government would want to force out all that foreign capital and they may even be tempted to try to attract more.
Ultimately, the UK economy is very dependent on the housing bubble that has built up over the last decade.
Governments will be forced to do everything they can to keep it inflated, as if it pops, then the damage to the UK economy will be immeasurable.
Governments will be forced to do everything they can to keep it inflated, as if it pops, then the damage to the UK economy will be immeasurable.
I think it's a when, not an if. The only way to avoid a housing pop is to not blow a housing bubble, and it's a little late for that.
Yes, it'll cause pain. The longer they keep kicking the can down the road, the more people get sucked into buying at comically inflated prices on the assumption of ZIRP+HPI forever, the more painful it'll be. And the politics are slowly but surely changing, as the shut-out shift from an easily-ignorable minority to a near-majority.
Yes, it'll cause pain. The longer they keep kicking the can down the road, the more people get sucked into buying at comically inflated prices on the assumption of ZIRP+HPI forever, the more painful it'll be. And the politics are slowly but surely changing, as the shut-out shift from an easily-ignorable minority to a near-majority.
How is that related?
true, but that will probably decrease wages too
It can be argued that the influx of "cheap" European migrants also keeps wages down. I think there's just too many variables to make an accurate prediction on housing prices or wages in either scenario.
The aim of BREXIT is to reduce immigration.
_IF_ that truly happens (and i seriously doubt that the "Borrises" are actually genuine about this) then local-uk wages will increase especially for skilled labour. Low wage producer's will simply be replaced by foreign imports, increasing the deficit unless of course the UK engages in a protectionist war with EU and EVERYONE else... (which it won't do).
_IF_ that truly happens (and i seriously doubt that the "Borrises" are actually genuine about this) then local-uk wages will increase especially for skilled labour. Low wage producer's will simply be replaced by foreign imports, increasing the deficit unless of course the UK engages in a protectionist war with EU and EVERYONE else... (which it won't do).
> "The aim of BREXIT is to reduce immigration."
That's not the only aim.
The EU isn't truly democratic. The central body of power in the EU is the European Commission, and they're not democratically elected. The European Commission is the only group in the EU with the power to propose new legislation, no members of the European Parliament can do so.
I'll be voting to leave purely because I believe in democracy. I want elected representatives to have the power to represent the public, instead of being employed provide a veneer of respectability to a deeply flawed institution. I certainly won't be doing so over immigration as I believe immigration provides a net benefit to the UK.
That's not the only aim.
The EU isn't truly democratic. The central body of power in the EU is the European Commission, and they're not democratically elected. The European Commission is the only group in the EU with the power to propose new legislation, no members of the European Parliament can do so.
I'll be voting to leave purely because I believe in democracy. I want elected representatives to have the power to represent the public, instead of being employed provide a veneer of respectability to a deeply flawed institution. I certainly won't be doing so over immigration as I believe immigration provides a net benefit to the UK.
The European Commission is elected by the heads of government of the EU nations. That is a whole lot more democratic than the house of Lords. It is actually as democratic as the manner in which the ministers in the UK are selected.
And in any case a whole lot easier to fix, than to leave for. Because to be honest the EU is more democratic than Westminster. After all Farage is in the EU parliament but not the UK one.
And in any case a whole lot easier to fix, than to leave for. Because to be honest the EU is more democratic than Westminster. After all Farage is in the EU parliament but not the UK one.
I'd be up for reforming the House of Lords as well, it's not an either/or situation.
The members of the European Commission are appointed by the heads of government from the member countries, however this matters very little when the mandate of the commissioners is clearly stated to be to represent the interests of Europe over the member countries. This isn't based on some biased media story, this comes directly from the horse's mouth. Check out this video from the European Commission's own YouTube channel...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWpgO1EPO_Y
From that video...
“The commission is a group of politicians, men and women, who meet every Wednesday in Brussels. We call them Commissioners. Together they form the government of Europe so to speak. They all have their own specific responsibilities and come from different countries. It is their role to defend the general interest of the European Union. When they take their oaths, they swear not to accept instructions from their own government.”
> "And in any case a whole lot easier to fix, than to leave for."
Perhaps I haven't made it clear. The only ones with power to reform the EU to make it more democratic are the EC, who would need to voluntarily give up their power to do so. How are you expecting that to pan out?
The members of the European Commission are appointed by the heads of government from the member countries, however this matters very little when the mandate of the commissioners is clearly stated to be to represent the interests of Europe over the member countries. This isn't based on some biased media story, this comes directly from the horse's mouth. Check out this video from the European Commission's own YouTube channel...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWpgO1EPO_Y
From that video...
“The commission is a group of politicians, men and women, who meet every Wednesday in Brussels. We call them Commissioners. Together they form the government of Europe so to speak. They all have their own specific responsibilities and come from different countries. It is their role to defend the general interest of the European Union. When they take their oaths, they swear not to accept instructions from their own government.”
> "And in any case a whole lot easier to fix, than to leave for."
Perhaps I haven't made it clear. The only ones with power to reform the EU to make it more democratic are the EC, who would need to voluntarily give up their power to do so. How are you expecting that to pan out?
The UK isn't truly democratic. We're currently governed by a government that has a parliamentary majority despite only getting the support of 37% of voter.
With the way the UK electoral system is currently set up, the extreme results it produces makes me very happy to have the EU to moderate things.
What the last 20 years shows us is that UK governments have systematically tried to erode workers rights, remove social safety nets and strip away human rights, and it's largely been the EU that has held it in check.
I fear what we'll see in the case of an exit, with a government no longer reigned in by the EU treaties.
With the way the UK electoral system is currently set up, the extreme results it produces makes me very happy to have the EU to moderate things.
What the last 20 years shows us is that UK governments have systematically tried to erode workers rights, remove social safety nets and strip away human rights, and it's largely been the EU that has held it in check.
I fear what we'll see in the case of an exit, with a government no longer reigned in by the EU treaties.
I agree that the UK needs electoral reform too. Ideally we'd get our own house in order before leaving the EU, but sadly if we vote to stay now we're unlikely to get the opportunity to vote again any time soon. The last UK referendum on the EU was in 1975. A vote to stay would probably mean staying in the EU for the bulk of my lifetime. If we want out, we should take the opportunity now.
As for the EU holding the UK in check, that's not quite accurate. It's true that the current Conservative government under Cameron has been damaging to public services, but that's not always been the case over the past 20 years. The Labour governments of Blair and Brown, for all their flaws, weren't pursuing the same type of wholesale undermining of public services. As an added bonus, if you want the policies of the Conservatives to stop, leaving the EU is likely to divide the Conservatives more than most parties, leading to a weaker party at the next general election.
Lastly, the EU does not always act to protect the people of the UK. As an example, take a look at what happened to the UK fishing industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Fisheries_Policy#Critic...
As for the EU holding the UK in check, that's not quite accurate. It's true that the current Conservative government under Cameron has been damaging to public services, but that's not always been the case over the past 20 years. The Labour governments of Blair and Brown, for all their flaws, weren't pursuing the same type of wholesale undermining of public services. As an added bonus, if you want the policies of the Conservatives to stop, leaving the EU is likely to divide the Conservatives more than most parties, leading to a weaker party at the next general election.
Lastly, the EU does not always act to protect the people of the UK. As an example, take a look at what happened to the UK fishing industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Fisheries_Policy#Critic...
> I'll be voting to leave purely because I believe in democracy.
Without looking them up are you able to name all your local councillors?
Without looking them up are you able to name all your local councillors?
I can't, but I did get a vote to pick them. I don't think your question speaks to the issue of the European commission being unelected.
It might not be the case for HN readers, but a lot of people who complain about the undemocratic nature of EU never vote in local elections.
Being interested in democracy means using your vote (or making a decision to abstain). Not bothering to vote is incompatible with the declared interest in democracy.
Being interested in democracy means using your vote (or making a decision to abstain). Not bothering to vote is incompatible with the declared interest in democracy.
> Being interested in democracy means using your vote (or making a decision to abstain). Not bothering to vote is incompatible with the declared interest in democracy.
That's a strawman.
Plenty of people are not interested in all or part of a democratic system, but appreciate that it exists, and that it provides channels through which they can influence the way they are governed, if they deem it necessary.
That's a strawman.
Plenty of people are not interested in all or part of a democratic system, but appreciate that it exists, and that it provides channels through which they can influence the way they are governed, if they deem it necessary.
No. Your point being?
A lot of people talk about how important democracy is, but when given an important bit of local democracy they show they're not involved.
Most people don't know the differences between the town council and their local authority; they have no idea who their councillors are; they might not even know which party has control.
Most people don't know the differences between the town council and their local authority; they have no idea who their councillors are; they might not even know which party has control.
So in other words you assumed that I didn't care about local democracy, and therefore implied I was a hypocrite.
For what it's worth, I voted in the local elections held this year, have voted in general elections, and have even met up with my local MP to discuss financial reform.
Furthermore, the idea of a representative democracy is that you elect people to work on your behalf. You do so because it's a full time job to stay abreast about all political issues. Even if I knew the names of all my local councillors, knowing their names doesn't give me any insight into the decisions being made. Most of us have a limited range of interests, I could tell you about political activity I'm interested in, would that satisfy you that I'm paying attention?
For what it's worth, I voted in the local elections held this year, have voted in general elections, and have even met up with my local MP to discuss financial reform.
Furthermore, the idea of a representative democracy is that you elect people to work on your behalf. You do so because it's a full time job to stay abreast about all political issues. Even if I knew the names of all my local councillors, knowing their names doesn't give me any insight into the decisions being made. Most of us have a limited range of interests, I could tell you about political activity I'm interested in, would that satisfy you that I'm paying attention?
It is the elected European Parliament that passes the laws proposed by the Commission. Also the Parliament can ask the Commission to propose legislation.
> "It is the elected European Parliament that passes the laws proposed by the Commission."
All they can do is say yes or no. The European Commission can keep pushing forward the same legislation until they get a yes. Even referendums aren't enough to stop the EC, look at what happened with the vote on the European Constitution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitu...
As you can see, the outcome of the referendums resulted in the European Constitution being rejected, so what the EC did was to take the main changes and push them through as amendments to existing agreements. This group of changes is known as the Lisbon Treaty.
> "Also the Parliament can ask the Commission to propose legislation."
That's not the same as having the power to propose legislation.
Anyone can ask the Commission to propose legislation, including lobbyists (there are over 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels, and you can be sure they're focused on influencing the ones with power to make changes https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-euro... ) and the general public (through a European Citizens Initiative).
Just because you can ask for changes, doesn't mean the EC has to listen to you. As I've said in a different comment, the main priority of the EC is to work in the best interests of the EU, not the individual member countries.
All they can do is say yes or no. The European Commission can keep pushing forward the same legislation until they get a yes. Even referendums aren't enough to stop the EC, look at what happened with the vote on the European Constitution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitu...
As you can see, the outcome of the referendums resulted in the European Constitution being rejected, so what the EC did was to take the main changes and push them through as amendments to existing agreements. This group of changes is known as the Lisbon Treaty.
> "Also the Parliament can ask the Commission to propose legislation."
That's not the same as having the power to propose legislation.
Anyone can ask the Commission to propose legislation, including lobbyists (there are over 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels, and you can be sure they're focused on influencing the ones with power to make changes https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-euro... ) and the general public (through a European Citizens Initiative).
Just because you can ask for changes, doesn't mean the EC has to listen to you. As I've said in a different comment, the main priority of the EC is to work in the best interests of the EU, not the individual member countries.
> Just because you can ask for changes, doesn't mean the EC has to listen to you. As I've said in a different comment, the main priority of the EC is to work in the best interests of the EU, not the individual member countries.
The parliament has power of censure over the EC so in theory the EC could be made to listen.
I do agree with you that the EU is a democratic mess and share your concern about lobbyists.
I do however struggle to swallow Democracy as the main argument for Brexit when we have:
* a government in the UK elected by 25% of the possible electorate.
* parties gaining > 10% of the national vote having no representation in UK parliament
* an un-elected house of Lords
* a prime minister (who we technically don't elect and who can change at any time) who magically inherits powers from the queen to sign treaties and go to war
I look forward to the shining lights of the Brexit camp taking on these democratic deficits with the same enthusiasm in the future.
The parliament has power of censure over the EC so in theory the EC could be made to listen.
I do agree with you that the EU is a democratic mess and share your concern about lobbyists.
I do however struggle to swallow Democracy as the main argument for Brexit when we have:
* a government in the UK elected by 25% of the possible electorate.
* parties gaining > 10% of the national vote having no representation in UK parliament
* an un-elected house of Lords
* a prime minister (who we technically don't elect and who can change at any time) who magically inherits powers from the queen to sign treaties and go to war
I look forward to the shining lights of the Brexit camp taking on these democratic deficits with the same enthusiasm in the future.
> "The parliament has power of censure over the EC so in theory the EC could be made to listen."
Could you explain further what you mean by this? I'm not familiar with the term 'power of censure'.
> "I look forward to the shining lights of the Brexit camp taking on these democratic deficits with the same enthusiasm in the future."
I don't care about what the 'shining lights' do, I know I'd gladly do so. First step in my opinion would be to renew the push towards proportional representation (and not the Alternative Vote cop out we were asked about before).
Could you explain further what you mean by this? I'm not familiar with the term 'power of censure'.
> "I look forward to the shining lights of the Brexit camp taking on these democratic deficits with the same enthusiasm in the future."
I don't care about what the 'shining lights' do, I know I'd gladly do so. First step in my opinion would be to renew the push towards proportional representation (and not the Alternative Vote cop out we were asked about before).
B. Motion of censure
There has been provision for a motion of censure against the Commission (under what is now
Article 234 TFEU) ever since the Treaty of Rome. Such a motion requires a two-thirds majority
of the votes cast, representing a majority of Parliament’s component members. If it is passed,
the Commission must resign as a body
Thank you. You've given me some hope that the EU can be reformed from the inside. I'll still be voting to leave, but at least I'll know where to direct my attention if we stay in.
The European Commission functions like a government. Do you vote for the government, or for MPs that then choose the government?
It's the same.
It's not the same. The MPs that I vote for can propose legislation, the MEPs that I vote for cannot. Without the power to propose legislation, how do you expect MEPs to truly represent your interests in the EU?
The MEPs represent your interests by electing and controlling the European Commission who in turn propose laws. I reckon that if you believe that having the parliament proposing laws is that important, you should get in touch with your MEP
The MEPs don't elect the European Commission. The MEPs do not control the European Commission. You should really look into how the European Union functions, the MEPs have far less power than you seem to believe.
I do wonder whether people feel trapped. You get paid a lot working in the City, but you have to spend a lot, too. You can try your luck elsewhere, but it's hard to think of where exactly, and you know for a fact there's this huge network that's the big city.