|
|
Post by aargauer on Oct 12, 2024 10:24:18 GMT
But neither Ipswich nor this seat have seen particularly poor conservative performances over the last few results, in the context of the national trend. This seat could easily have been lost in 1997 had the opposition not been split, and of course this year was significantly worse for the Tories than 1997. I don't really buy the idea that there's Brightonification here. It's not trendy or cool, and there are ultimately limited numbers of those sorts of people. Silicon Fen isn't like Brighton effect. They're generally richer for one thing. Brighton is just a few commuters. Silicon fen has more wealth really. The word gentrification and "elites" is massively overused. I don't really see how moving from a well to do if slightly dull seaside town to somewhere full of low to middle income kids with a tattoo and an edgy haircut represents gentrification. There are very few places in the uk that have actually gentrified, and largely it's limited to previously gratuitously run down inner urban areas. some but not all of inner east London. In my home city the Ouseburn area (I remember when it looked like something out of a dickens novel!). Any good candidates outside cities? This seat is just pleasant rural Tory England that's only loseable in an extremely poor year. Which this was. |
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Oct 12, 2024 10:44:49 GMT
Silicon Fen isn't like Brighton effect. They're generally richer for one thing. Brighton is just a few commuters. Silicon fen has more wealth really. The word gentrification and "elites" is massively overused. I don't really see how moving from a well to do if slightly dull seaside town to somewhere full of low to middle income kids with a tattoo and an edgy haircut represents gentrification. There are very few places in the uk that have actually gentrified, and largely it's limited to previously gratuitously run down inner urban areas. some but not all of inner east London. In my home city the Ouseburn area (I remember when it looked like something out of a dickens novel!). Any good candidates outside cities? This seat is just pleasant rural Tory England that's only loseable in an extremely poor year. Which this was. They are far too numerous to name. Some ex-mining areas, Forest of Dean. Others like Rother Valley gentrifying too. North East Derbyshire, parts of Bolsover. We’re a richer country in parts. It’s just housing became effectively unaffordable. Obviously “gentrification” is mostly an American term. As, of course, is “coastal elites”. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,096
|
Post by ilerda on Oct 12, 2024 10:55:10 GMT
I think suburbanisation and gentrification are very different, and lots of what we loosely term gentrification is in reality just suburbanisation.
|
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Oct 12, 2024 11:10:39 GMT
I think suburbanisation and gentrification are very different, and lots of what we loosely term gentrification is in reality just suburbanisation. I have never understood the problem the Left have with gentrification. What is wrong with poor urban areas becoming less poor? |
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Oct 12, 2024 11:16:31 GMT
I think suburbanisation and gentrification are very different, and lots of what we loosely term gentrification is in reality just suburbanisation. I have never understood the problem the Left have with gentrification. What is wrong with poor urban areas becoming less poor? I guess in the areas that really have indisputably gentrified. Let's say Shoreditch or the Isle of Dogs, it's largely driven by population replacement. And to be fair to the left, it shows a certain consistency to have issues with that even if the wealthy replacements are left wing. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,877 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 12, 2024 12:30:05 GMT
I have never understood the problem the Left have with gentrification. What is wrong with poor urban areas becoming less poor? I guess in the areas that really have indisputably gentrified. Let's say Shoreditch or the Isle of Dogs, it's largely driven by population replacement. And to be fair to the left, it shows a certain consistency to have issues with that even if the wealthy replacements are left wing. Gentrification is a real facet of the core of major cities and has been a feature of London for many generations. High class areas fade because they get worn out, industrialized, invaded by rail tracks and yards, afflicted by road improvements, or just in that cycle of boom and depression. I might cite Fulham, Notting Hill, Islington, Cheapside and Brixton as places that have moved up and down materially. The gentrification occurs when bright young aspirational couples buy in to a run-down or derelict area because it is well situated and appears to have promise despite being comparatively cheap. It used to imply a move from left to right in politics, but now that those terms have less effectiveness or simplicity and the parties are uncertain of their own positioning, it may well imply quite rapid change of party but not necessarily in crude left-right terms. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,755
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 12, 2024 12:42:54 GMT
I have never understood the problem the Left have with gentrification. What is wrong with poor urban areas becoming less poor? I guess in the areas that really have indisputably gentrified. Let's say Shoreditch or the Isle of Dogs, it's largely driven by population replacement. Hey! Population replacement is a neoliberal alt-right conspiracy theory. It's "community enrichment". |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 12, 2024 13:37:13 GMT
Outside the cities, Kent is a prime candidate. Folkestone and Whitstable jump out. I remember going on holiday to Whitstable as a kid and it was still a working place and not just DFL Central. Folkestone was pretty rough and ready (still is in places). I hear Ramsgate is on the way up, and it surely can't be too long before Deal goes the same way.
Elsewhere, Northwich is gentrifying as we speak. It is still fairly grim in the centre though.
|
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Oct 12, 2024 13:43:20 GMT
I have never understood the problem the Left have with gentrification. What is wrong with poor urban areas becoming less poor? I guess in the areas that really have indisputably gentrified. Let's say Shoreditch or the Isle of Dogs, it's largely driven by population replacement. And to be fair to the left, it shows a certain consistency to have issues with that even if the wealthy replacements are left wing. As a former Hackney resident, this is pretty much spot on. No one has a god-given right to live somewhere, but gentrification does force some people out. It should help with job creation though, and if managed well, you can build social rent and council housing in these new developments. |
|
|
|
Post by where2travel on Oct 12, 2024 14:57:45 GMT
Outside the cities, Kent is a prime candidate. Folkestone and Whitstable jump out. I remember going on holiday to Whitstable as a kid and it was still a working place and not just DFL Central. Folkestone was pretty rough and ready (still is in places). I hear Ramsgate is on the way up, and it surely can't be too long before Deal goes the same way. Elsewhere, Northwich is gentrifying as we speak. It is still fairly grim in the centre though. I've only been a couple of times, but Deal seems the sort of small seaside town that's always been smart and well-to-do. Certainly compared to it's larger and more run-down neighbour, Dover. Ramsgate does feel like it's on the way up, but having only ever been in recent years, I wondered if that was somewhere that never really 'needed' gentrification. Neighbouring Broadstairs has always been another level up, and is one of my favourite parts of the Kent coast. Margate is probably the one to watch, starting from. much lower base but probably increasingly popular with the DFL-ers due to the much more reasonable prices there compared to the likes of nearby Whitstable and Broadstairs etc. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 12, 2024 17:38:22 GMT
I think suburbanisation and gentrification are very different, and lots of what we loosely term gentrification is in reality just suburbanisation. Both arguably have similar negative effects on communities, though, so to many people they are one and the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Oct 12, 2024 18:23:26 GMT
I think suburbanisation and gentrification are very different, and lots of what we loosely term gentrification is in reality just suburbanisation. Both arguably have similar negative effects on communities, though, so to many people they are one and the same. Whikst its true they can bith lead to less community focused deader areas, they don't always have such a negative effect, some areas go from derelict, slummy to nice and community focused vitlaity through it. |
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Oct 12, 2024 19:11:58 GMT
Both arguably have similar negative effects on communities, though, so to many people they are one and the same. Whikst its true they can bith lead to less community focused deader areas, they don't always have such a negative effect, some areas go from derelict, slummy to nice and community focused vitlaity through it. I know I'm a dreadful right winger, but I have absolutely zero interest in "community focus". I just want somewhere with good housing, good transport and good prices. The basics. |
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Oct 12, 2024 19:20:52 GMT
Whikst its true they can bith lead to less community focused deader areas, they don't always have such a negative effect, some areas go from derelict, slummy to nice and community focused vitlaity through it. I know I'm a dreadful right winger, but I have absolutely zero interest in "community focus". I just want somewhere with good housing, good transport and good prices. It depends on the community, honestly. I felt Hackney catered to everyone. Many communities living side by side. I miss the area dearly, actually. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,096
|
Post by ilerda on Oct 13, 2024 8:57:41 GMT
I think suburbanisation and gentrification are very different, and lots of what we loosely term gentrification is in reality just suburbanisation. Both arguably have similar negative effects on communities, though, so to many people they are one and the same. I wonder how many people on the left would maintain that view if we swapped the word gentrification for immigration. |
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Oct 13, 2024 9:04:39 GMT
Both arguably have similar negative effects on communities, though, so to many people they are one and the same. I wonder how many people on the left would maintain that view if we swapped the word gentrification for immigration. Immigrants don't in general, gentrify areas. It's typically white yuppies doing that. Take Hackney as a good example. Immigrants didn't gentrify it, whites did. Obviously plenty of immigrants are white. I don't think Turks gentrified Stokey. It's more white middle class people. I can't comment on other areas. Looking at other places I've lived. I don't think immigrants gentrified Northamptonshire. It isn't really gentrifying at all. In London you've got wealthy Chinese. Now they do often help gentrification. A lot of new stuff is foreign-owned. New flats that just store wealth. They certainly push up property prices. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,096
|
Post by ilerda on Oct 13, 2024 12:05:05 GMT
I wonder how many people on the left would maintain that view if we swapped the word gentrification for immigration. Immigrants don't in general, gentrify areas. It's typically white yuppies doing that. Take Hackney as a good example. Immigrants didn't gentrify it, whites did. Obviously plenty of immigrants are white. I don't think Turks gentrified Stokey. It's more white middle class people. I can't comment on other areas. Looking at other places I've lived. I don't think immigrants gentrified Northamptonshire. It isn't really gentrifying at all. In London you've got wealthy Chinese. Now they do often help gentrification. A lot of new stuff is foreign-owned. New flats that just store wealth. They certainly push up property prices. My point wasn’t about whether immigrants gentrify an area. My point is that if you were to say “large numbers of immigrants are moving in and that’s having a negative effect on the existing communities” most people on the left would take issue with the statement, or at least not feel comfortable saying it themselves. Yet in reality it’s entirely the same principle regardless of whether it’s immigrants or yuppies moving in and changing the existing dynamic. |
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Oct 13, 2024 12:30:19 GMT
Immigrants don't in general, gentrify areas. It's typically white yuppies doing that. Take Hackney as a good example. Immigrants didn't gentrify it, whites did. Obviously plenty of immigrants are white. I don't think Turks gentrified Stokey. It's more white middle class people. I can't comment on other areas. Looking at other places I've lived. I don't think immigrants gentrified Northamptonshire. It isn't really gentrifying at all. In London you've got wealthy Chinese. Now they do often help gentrification. A lot of new stuff is foreign-owned. New flats that just store wealth. They certainly push up property prices. My point wasn’t about whether immigrants gentrify an area. My point is that if you were to say “large numbers of immigrants are moving in and that’s having a negative effect on the existing communities” most people on the left would take issue with the statement, or at least not feel comfortable saying it themselves. Yet in reality it’s entirely the same principle regardless of whether it’s immigrants or yuppies moving in and changing the existing dynamic. You'd be conflated with Enoch Powell? It should be a valid discussion. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by bsjmcr on Oct 13, 2024 12:53:11 GMT
There's more high-tech employment than you might think. Both the long-standing presence at Martlesham that was once BT's main research base, and also with the proximity to Cambridge meaning a spill-over of "Silicon Fen" economy. Also, Ipswich is perhaps under-noticed as a major base for London commuters. Journey time of over an hour, but the trade-off is that it puts you right in the heart of the City without onward travel. This seat could easily have been lost in 1997 had the opposition not been split, and of course this year was significantly worse for the Tories than 1997. Of course, in 1997 by coincidence the seat also had a controversial Environment Secretary as the incumbent - I wonder how much his role in BSE and the infamous burger photoshoot came up (even if a few years had passed by ‘97). Yes, Coffey wasn’t the incumbent Defra Secretary, but not by much, and I think memories of her role and whether it be turnip or sewage-gate are still pretty fresh. And the earlier comparison with other Suffolk seats where they did worse than here with new candidates isn’t exactly a high bar - the Bury St Edmund’s candidate probably being a particularly bad fit and one of many examples of SpAds failing miserably to get elected in ‘safe seats’ (unfortunately the awful one in West Suffolk succeeded). |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 13, 2024 13:52:23 GMT
I think suburbanisation and gentrification are very different, and lots of what we loosely term gentrification is in reality just suburbanisation. Both arguably have similar negative effects on communities, though, so to many people they are one and the same. It's far more complex than that though. Nobody who is a gentrifier ever wants to accept that, and are often the ones who are most critical of it elsewhere. There tend to be waves of places coming up and going down as carlton43 alludes to earlier. Manchester has quite a few. There's also a big difference between imposed gentrification and voluntary gentrification. My grandparents come from Chorlton, arguably Manchester's biggest example of voluntary gentrification. None of their old community are there now. Nobody was forced out-they all saw the pound signs, sold up and buggered off. I see it with my parents' generation just up the road as well. People fundamentally can't get market rate for their own homes but discount rates for their kids, and they need to accept that. |
|
