I built a machine learning model to find London's divide and you can enter your postcode to see which side you're on. We've been blaming the wrong people for it.
What did you use to define working class? Looking at census data looks like working class share of the population has fallen by about 7 percentage points nationally between 2001 and 2021 which would make the fall in London pretty typical for the whole country.
Wonderful work, Lauren. Just one comment. You say:
"The working-class share of London’s population fell almost everywhere between 2001 and 2021: down 5.5 percentage points inside the Latte Line, and 8.6 outside it. But the revealing part is not who left. It is who replaced them."
I don't doubt that displacement is some of the explanation, but couldn't it also have been rising standards of living of the existing residents? Twenty years is just about a generation. Perhaps the children of the original working class inhabitants attained higher education and salaries than their parents? UK GDP/capital rose nearly 20% over that period of time. Surely this is not because immigrants with high incomes displaced working-class Brits nationwide :)
Thanks and I completely agree! You're right that intergenerational mobility is a real mechanism and I would say that twenty years is long enough for children of working-class households to complete education and move into professional occupations, and UK social mobility data does show some upward movement over this period, even if less than the GDP figure might suggest (most of those gains were concentrated at the top).
The reason I lean toward displacement as at least a partial explanation is the spatial pattern. If rising living standards were the primary driver, you'd expect the decline in working-class share to be relatively uniform across London: prosperity lifted all boats. Instead the sharpest losses are concentrated in specific inner-city areas that also saw the largest increases in professional-class in-migration and the steepest house price appreciation.
I agree displacement is likely to be part of the explanation - but isn't it also possible those regeneration schemes drove living standards up higher than in other areas? If Canary Wharf did bring lots of spill-over benefit with investment/jobs/etc wouldn't you also see the working class % drop more than the average? I think having data for displacement would help but is probably hard - maybe something could be estimated by cobbling together census data (and looking at ethnicity for proof of changes in an area's mix), as well as house sales data (ownership assumption might ruin that).
In general I'm fascinated by why some areas of London have gentrified and others haven't and have found no good answers - growing up in Newham ~30 years ago Peckham and Hackney were the areas we were scared of but they've completely transformed while Newham's remained much the same (despite better transport links and green space). My guess is migration patterns and home/business ownership are part of the story, but answering that would I think really help policy making. Ditto for if there are really any examples of regeneration/investment that have sustainably benefited the existing community without much displacement.
This was really good, well done. I agree with almost all of it except social housing.
I think that social housing is a pox on poor people, a pox on housing markets, a pox on councils, and a pox on cities. At best, it perpetuates the kind of line you are trying to combat, and at worst, it becomes a fairground for corruption (eg Paris).
I would strongly support selling every unit (right to buy is fine, but sell it all), and removing _every_ reference to social housing of whatever kind in every law, regulation, ordinance, and guideline.
Then, if you think that certain households need subsidies to be able to live in certain areas, well, just subsidise those households.
Just to say do have a wonderful time! I'm envious - I want to spend less time working and more time cycling. It sounds like there will be more than one of you - have you come across the Pino Haas semi-recumbent tandem? I think London Recumbents sell them, and let you try before you buy. I have no interest to declare, other than that I want one myself. I haven't tried it out yet, but I have ridden tandems in the past (but not yet with Greg James unfortunately).
I must say, this captures the social mix here in SE much better than most traditional class maps of London. Talking anecdotally, it picks up the suburban semi-posh bit that is sandwiched between Lewisham and Deptford. It is remarkable how quickly you can go from vegan small-plates and bookshops to chicken shops and bookies around here!
Have a look on domain.com and search for houses in western Sydney. You probably won’t get anything less than £500,000. The divide here is not between who makes the lattes but between who owns a house with a land component and who purchased it more than 6 years ago when prices doubled. That’s the real indication of wealth not from a perpetual renter in the eastern suburbs who earns £50k a year but can’t afford to buy a property
Brilliant analysis! If you haven't already you should reach out to the London Centric team they could be keen to report on it as they don't fear depth and accuracy and they've written a lot about the elephant and castle gentrification & their current project is keeping landlord Asif Asiz under scrutiny
What did you use to define working class? Looking at census data looks like working class share of the population has fallen by about 7 percentage points nationally between 2001 and 2021 which would make the fall in London pretty typical for the whole country.
So the percentage I give there is specifically for the areas surrounding Canary Wharf. I use the NS-SEC variable from the census
Wonderful work, Lauren. Just one comment. You say:
"The working-class share of London’s population fell almost everywhere between 2001 and 2021: down 5.5 percentage points inside the Latte Line, and 8.6 outside it. But the revealing part is not who left. It is who replaced them."
I don't doubt that displacement is some of the explanation, but couldn't it also have been rising standards of living of the existing residents? Twenty years is just about a generation. Perhaps the children of the original working class inhabitants attained higher education and salaries than their parents? UK GDP/capital rose nearly 20% over that period of time. Surely this is not because immigrants with high incomes displaced working-class Brits nationwide :)
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-worldbank?tab=line&time=2001..latest&country=~GBR
Hopefully your latte line will grow to ultimately encompass the entire country.
Thanks and I completely agree! You're right that intergenerational mobility is a real mechanism and I would say that twenty years is long enough for children of working-class households to complete education and move into professional occupations, and UK social mobility data does show some upward movement over this period, even if less than the GDP figure might suggest (most of those gains were concentrated at the top).
The reason I lean toward displacement as at least a partial explanation is the spatial pattern. If rising living standards were the primary driver, you'd expect the decline in working-class share to be relatively uniform across London: prosperity lifted all boats. Instead the sharpest losses are concentrated in specific inner-city areas that also saw the largest increases in professional-class in-migration and the steepest house price appreciation.
I agree displacement is likely to be part of the explanation - but isn't it also possible those regeneration schemes drove living standards up higher than in other areas? If Canary Wharf did bring lots of spill-over benefit with investment/jobs/etc wouldn't you also see the working class % drop more than the average? I think having data for displacement would help but is probably hard - maybe something could be estimated by cobbling together census data (and looking at ethnicity for proof of changes in an area's mix), as well as house sales data (ownership assumption might ruin that).
In general I'm fascinated by why some areas of London have gentrified and others haven't and have found no good answers - growing up in Newham ~30 years ago Peckham and Hackney were the areas we were scared of but they've completely transformed while Newham's remained much the same (despite better transport links and green space). My guess is migration patterns and home/business ownership are part of the story, but answering that would I think really help policy making. Ditto for if there are really any examples of regeneration/investment that have sustainably benefited the existing community without much displacement.
This was really good, well done. I agree with almost all of it except social housing.
I think that social housing is a pox on poor people, a pox on housing markets, a pox on councils, and a pox on cities. At best, it perpetuates the kind of line you are trying to combat, and at worst, it becomes a fairground for corruption (eg Paris).
I would strongly support selling every unit (right to buy is fine, but sell it all), and removing _every_ reference to social housing of whatever kind in every law, regulation, ordinance, and guideline.
Then, if you think that certain households need subsidies to be able to live in certain areas, well, just subsidise those households.
> We are cycling parts of Australia's east coast
Just to say do have a wonderful time! I'm envious - I want to spend less time working and more time cycling. It sounds like there will be more than one of you - have you come across the Pino Haas semi-recumbent tandem? I think London Recumbents sell them, and let you try before you buy. I have no interest to declare, other than that I want one myself. I haven't tried it out yet, but I have ridden tandems in the past (but not yet with Greg James unfortunately).
Thank you! I've just looked it up and I'm already dangerously tempted already. I'll report back from the east coast!
Echoes of that twitter/instagram post "London Banana". Matches it well, except that failed to catch hackney/shoreditch cluster in the east
I was just about to comment that the map shading looked very familiar!
I must say, this captures the social mix here in SE much better than most traditional class maps of London. Talking anecdotally, it picks up the suburban semi-posh bit that is sandwiched between Lewisham and Deptford. It is remarkable how quickly you can go from vegan small-plates and bookshops to chicken shops and bookies around here!
This is fascinating!
Very useful, informative and innovative blog. Hat or more tipped! Thank you and keep it going.
Have a look on domain.com and search for houses in western Sydney. You probably won’t get anything less than £500,000. The divide here is not between who makes the lattes but between who owns a house with a land component and who purchased it more than 6 years ago when prices doubled. That’s the real indication of wealth not from a perpetual renter in the eastern suburbs who earns £50k a year but can’t afford to buy a property
Very nice work, with some parallels to my latest article.
One theory I heard is that high home prices are basically a price that rich people pay in order to live around other rich people
Brilliant analysis! If you haven't already you should reach out to the London Centric team they could be keen to report on it as they don't fear depth and accuracy and they've written a lot about the elephant and castle gentrification & their current project is keeping landlord Asif Asiz under scrutiny