Jump to content

Recommended Posts

to put it bluntly, a family spending a million plus on a house are likely to have a load more disposable income than any number of long time local families on low incomes.


Actually, that very much depends on how much in debt they have had to go to 'afford' a 7 figure price for a house. Even assuming that they are trading up from a smaller property/ less desirable area, their disposable income in the short term is likely to be heavily constrained by mortgage repayments, particularly if they are also (as so many seem to be) picking up the costs of parenthood. I remember (luckily I did this at a time of high inflation, when my 'real' debt came down quite quickly), that the early years of property ownership, with small children, were not a time of unlimited disposable income, even though I would have been in a more privileged position than some - the equivalent of those being portrayed here.


Their aspirations (and their desire to be 'read' in particular way) may take them into the M&S camp, but they will (probably) be making other economies to do this.


Those with real disposable income in ED are those who bought some time ago, have paid down or off their mortgage and whose children are now (more) self supporting, I would suggest.

Otta


I don't think there is any hyperbole, and I expect you're right.


'Over the moon' - 'gutted' - both slightly over-egged phrases/ verbs - but I did mean it kindly. - I'd have gone with 'quite pleased' and 'quite upset' if I hadn't a rhetorical point to make.

"I remember (luckily I did this at a time of high inflation, when my 'real' debt came down quite quickly), that the early years of property ownership, with small children, were not a time of unlimited disposable income, even though I would have been in a more privileged position than some - the equivalent of those being portrayed here.......


Those with real disposable income in ED are those who bought some time ago, have paid down or off their mortgage and whose children are now (more) self supporting, I would suggest."


Possibly, but I suspect not. People buying in ED 10 - 20 years ago were able to do so on average London incomes - not at all the equivalent of anyone buying a family home now - and I seriously doubt there are many mortgage lenders handing out 1/2 million ? and more to folks who will be cutting back on their M&S shops to afford the repayments.


In any event, although the prevalence of house price discussions on here may suggest otherwise, only a little over 50% of households in ED are owner-occupied, the balance being fairly evenly split between private and social housing tenants:


http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6501600&c=East+Dulwich&d=14&e=7&g=6336662&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1410792592597&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2505

DaveR, when you look at the businesses that are struggling for customers, its pretty clear what the demographics are like. Rich newcomers are not from a minority position closing down all of the working class outlets.


Again, the CPT turning into the Great Exhibition is a perfect example of why that argument makes no sense.

"DaveR, when you look at the businesses that are struggling for customers, its pretty clear what the demographics are like. Rich newcomers are not from a minority position closing down all of the working class outlets.


Again, the CPT turning into the Great Exhibition is a perfect example of why that argument makes no sense"


Pubs are not really representative though, because the fundamentals of the market have changed so much.


The stats don't lie though. Here's another one - between 2001 and 2011 the proportion of ED households displaying at least one indicator of deprivation declined significantly, but from c.56% to 46% i.e. nearly half of all ED households still show statistical indicators that correlate with deprivation:


http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6501600&c=East+Dulwich&d=14&e=10&g=6336662&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1410795001822&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2520


http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6501600&c=East+Dulwich&d=14&e=10&g=6336662&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1410795001822&enc=1&dsFamilyId=169


It's easy to think this can't be true when new shops and restaurants are buzzing and new funky businesses opening all the time, but that's really my point. It is actually very likely that a minority (albeit a sizeable one)of local residents are supporting the majority of these businesses.

DaveR, that is an intereseting point except the indicators of deprivation they are measuring are not economic deprevation.

For instance, a household in which quote "any person in the household has general health 'bad or very bad' or has a long term health problem.)" would have one indicator of deprivation.


Similarly, if the Household is in a shared dwelling, that automatically counts as a maker of deprivation as well!


While, I am under no illusion that ED is not full of only yuppies those stats are not an indication that 43% of people in ED are economically deprived.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Is anyone really losing out? Iceland delivers,

> > and certainly that's even more convenient for

> OAPs

> > who rely on their goods.

>

>

> If they have a computer and the savvy to actually

> order.


I'm pretty sure they only deliver if you actually shop in the store. You can't order online.

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> The stats don't lie though. Here's another one -

> between 2001 and 2011 the proportion of ED

> households displaying at least one indicator of

> deprivation declined significantly, but from c.56%

> to 46% i.e. nearly half of all ED households still

> show statistical indicators that correlate with

> deprivation:

>

> http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemi

> nation/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6501600&c=East+Dulwi

> ch&d=14&e=10&g=6336662&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=

> 1410795001822&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2520

>

> http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemi

> nation/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6501600&c=East+Dulwi

> ch&d=14&e=10&g=6336662&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=

> 1410795001822&enc=1&dsFamilyId=169

>


I think you need to check out the boundaries of East Dulwich Ward.


John K

I'm a little bit sad about Icelands going, as I pop in regularly to buy bits & bobs. However...


Anyone who actually genuinely shops there MUST know that it's not doing particularly well on LL these days. Most times I go there, there is one counter open & only 1-2 people in the queue. For a high-street supermarket, that's not so good!


I would also distrust any argument that it's full of healthy food. Their products may be GM free, but aside from the (very good) frozen veg, fish & veggie products, it's pretty unhealthy stuff (I'm talking about their pre-prepared frozen meals)..


Very good when you're in need of cheap haribo & pringles though:)

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why would anyone need to shop every few days for

> frozen food? Even a normal sized freezer should

> be able to hold 35 quid of frozen food.


Iceland sells more than frozen food, fruit, vegetables, tinned goods, cheese, meat, yogurt, milk, bread etc. Just because it is called Iceland doesn't mean people go in there just for frozen food. Lots of pensioners go out daily to shop for socialising and to get out of the house.

I have been there -- when my husband was a student he shopped at the Iceland in Peckham regularly until I broke him of the habit. It wasn't any more expensive to eat fresh food from Peckham. He simply didn't like cooking but I do, so I made our meals.


The name of the store is Iceland, so while they do sell other things, as the name suggests anyone who claims to do most of their shopping at Iceland would be buying a lot of frozen food.


If someone is only buying eggs and milk there, the closure might be disappointing but its unlikely to make a real difference to the cost of their weekly expenditure.

Canned food does not need to bought every few days as it also has a long shelf life and I freeze my bread anyway to preserve it.


I very much understand that pensioners need to get out to socialise but that can't possibly reason to make the signing of a new lease a political issue.


This whole thread basically claiming the actions of the freeholders are going to have vast swathes of ED on the breadline is very weak and more than a little ridiculous in my opinion.


As others have said, Iceland has not been very busy of late and there numerous chains that offer better value for basic produce. For those that like the unique frozen food selection, you can get it delivered if you can't access Peckham.



Mustard Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Why would anyone need to shop every few days

> for

> > frozen food? Even a normal sized freezer

> should

> > be able to hold 35 quid of frozen food.

>

> Iceland sells more than frozen food, fruit,

> vegetables, tinned goods, cheese, meat, yogurt,

> milk, bread etc. Just because it is called

> Iceland doesn't mean people go in there just for

> frozen food. Lots of pensioners go out daily to

> shop for socialising and to get out of the house.

I use Iceland now and then - can't think of any reason i would ever use M&S food though.


Ready meals, sandwiches, confectionery and wine. Ready meals are full of salt, sugar and crap - even if it IS not just any crap, but M&S crap - and there won't be anything else that isn't already available locally either cheaper or better quality (or both). It's middle-brow trough-filler.

M&S is food is genuinely no better than any mid-range supermarket. It's packaged and marketed for people to believe it is a premium product, and yes the price certainty is comparably premium, but the quality certainly is not. Iceland attracts people for basic produce is a damn site cheaper than the Co-op for bread, milk other basics etc. the older population of those on a restricted income who shop here will suffer to an extent, but it's about more than that. It's about the second largest retail spot on the lane falling to gentrification when as pointed out previously, the area still has a large proportion of the population close to the poverty line.


Louisa.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...