We're going to run out of houses in London

Falling well short of projections.

New household growth projections released by DCLG this week show that over 525,000 new households that will be created in London between 2011 and 2021.

The supply pipeline suggests that delivery of new units will fall well short of this, with an estimated 277,000 new units expected to be delivered over the next decade.

According to Knight Frank’s head of UK residential research, Gráinne Gilmore: “The overall trend for development in London shows that demand for housing in the capital will continue to outstrip supply by quite some margin. There is widespread recognition of the housing shortage in the capital, with the Mayor pushing hard to encourage higher levels of development."

This news could further boost prices in the capital which are already at record highs. Since the end of 2007, which is considered to be the peak of the market in most developed countries, London property prices have risen by 7 per cent (Source: Land Registry).

London prime prices have risen by even more - they are up over 20 per cent since end of 2007 (Source: Knight Frank, £1m+ homes only). London prime property has performed particularly well recently with growth of 12.2 per cent in 2011 and 8.7 per cent in 2012. In the first 5 months of 2013, prime prices rose by another 3.2 per cent according the Knight Frank figures.

This has been fuelled mainly by foreigners buying in. According to Knight Frank, local buyers made up only half of London sales in 2012. Russian buyers made up a high 6.6 per cent, USA buyers 4.8 per cent, Indian buyers 4.4 per cent, French buyers 3.3 per cent, Italian buyers 2.6 per cent and South African buyers made up 2.2 per cent. Super-prime statistics published by Knight Frank are even more extreme with local buyers making up less than a third of London buyers in 2012. Super-prime refers to properties valued at more than £10m each.

Despite this strong growth, it should be noted that London prime prices are still at a similar level to the end of 2007 if measured in US dollar terms.

This is of course still significantly healthier than general UK house prices which are down over 34 per cent since the end of 2007 (if measured in US dollar terms).

Photograph: Getty Images

Andrew Amoils is a writer for WealthInsight

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

How the shadow cabinet forced Jeremy Corbyn not to change Labour policy on Syria air strikes

Frontbenchers made it clear that they "would not leave the room" until the leader backed down. 

Jeremy Corbyn had been forced to back down once before the start of today's shadow cabinet meeting on Syria, offering Labour MPs a free vote on air strikes against Isis. By the end of the two-hour gathering, he had backed down twice.

At the start of the meeting, Corbyn's office briefed the Guardian that while a free would be held, party policy would be changed to oppose military action - an attempt to claim partial victory. But shadow cabinet members, led by Andy Burnham, argued that this was "unacceptable" and an attempt to divide MPs from members. Burnham, who is not persuaded by the case for air strikes, warned that colleagues who voted against the party's proposed position would become targets for abuse, undermining the principle of a free vote.

Jon Ashworth, the shadow minister without portfolio and NEC member, said that Labour's policy remained the motion passed by this year's conference, which was open to competing interpretations (though most believe the tests it set for military action have been met). Party policy could not be changed without going through a similarly formal process, he argued. In advance of the meeting, Labour released a poll of members (based on an "initial sample" of 1,900) showing that 75 per cent opposed intervention. 

When Corbyn's team suggested that the issue be resolved after the meeting, those present made it clear that they "would not leave the room" until the Labour leader had backed down. By the end, only Corbyn ally Diane Abbott argued that party policy should be changed to oppose military action. John McDonnell, who has long argued for a free vote, took a more "conciliatory" approach, I'm told. It was when Hilary Benn said that he would be prepared to speak from the backbenches in the Syria debate, in order to avoid opposing party policy, that Corbyn realised he would have to give way. The Labour leader and the shadow foreign secretary will now advocate opposing positions from the frontbench when MPs meet, with Corbyn opening and Benn closing. 

The meeting had begun with members, including some who reject military action, complaining about the "discorteous" and "deplorable" manner in which the issue had been handled. As I reported last week, there was outrage when Corbyn wrote to MPs opposing air strikes without first informing the shadow cabinet (I'm told that my account of that meeting was also raised). There was anger today when, at 2:07pm, seven minutes after the meeting began, some members received an update on their phones from the Guardian revealing that a free vote would be held but that party policy would be changed to oppose military action. This "farcical moment", in the words of one present (Corbyn is said to have been unaware of the briefing), only hardened shadow cabinet members' resolve to force their leader to back down - and he did. 

In a statement released following the meeting, a Corbyn spokesperson confirmed that a free vote would be held but made no reference to party policy: 

"Today's Shadow Cabinet agreed to back Jeremy Corbyn's recommendation of a free vote on the Government's proposal to authorise UK bombing in Syria.   

"The Shadow Cabinet decided to support the call for David Cameron to step back from the rush to war and hold a full two day debate in the House of Commons on such a crucial national decision.  

"Shadow Cabinet members agreed to call David Cameron to account on the unanswered questions raised by his case for bombing: including how it would accelerate a negotiated settlement of the Syrian civil war; what ground troops would take territory evacuated by ISIS; military co-ordination and strategy; the refugee crisis and the imperative to cut-off of supplies to ISIS."

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.