On November 21st, an X account under the name “Ms. G” provoked controversy when she quoted another post by saying, “who’s colonised now BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!” Her post ended up getting more than 600K likes. The post that “Ms. G” quoted states, “Indians now own more property in London than native white Britons”. A remarkable statistic, but is it true?
The original post was made by “Pubity”, which markets itself as a page for “informative, entertaining and breaking news”. However, it did not provide any evidence for the claim that “Indians now own more property in London than native white Britons”.
When I searched for this statement on Google, all the links were to questionable news sites, many based in India. What’s more, at least one of the links was to an article from 2022, making the very same claim. Several of the articles I came across ‘quoted’ the property developer Barratt London:
Indians make up the largest group of property owners in london, represented by those who have lived in the U.K. for generations, NRIs, foreign investors, students and families who come to the U.K. for education. [The lower-case ‘l’ in London is in the original.]
However, when I searched for this exact statement on Google, I was unable to find any report or press release by Barratt London. Once again, all the links were to questionable news sites and social media pages.
Even if we use the broadest possible definition of ‘Indians’ to mean anyone of Indian background or nationality, it is highly implausible that “Indians now own more property in London than native white Britons”.
As of 2021, 36.8% of London’s population identifies as White British, compared to only 7.5% that identifies as Indian. While Indians in London have a higher home ownership rate than white Britons, the difference is relatively small – 66% versus 59%. Multiplying the population shares by the home ownership rates, the number of White British homeowners in London is more than four times larger than the number of Indian homeowners.
What about wealthy foreigners who own propert in London? Non-residents reportedly own less than 3% of homes in the capital – and that’s all non-residents, not just Indians. Even if we assume that all foreign homeowners are Indian, the number of white British homeowners would still be almost three times larger than the number of Indian homeowners.
Could the claim be correct if it referred to the total value of homes, rather than the total number? It’s extremely unlikely. Indians are concentrated in the western periphery of London, as well as in the boroughs of Newham and Redbridge. By contrast, the most expensive properties in London are found in the boroughs of Richmond, Fulham, Kensington, Chelsea, Westminster and the City. None of these boroughs has a large Indian population. For example, only 2.2% of people in Fulham and Kensington identify as Indian.
The single wealthiest landlord in London is the Duke of Westminster, a white British man, who owns around 300 acres of Belgravia and Mayfair, comprising some of the most expensive real estate in the world.
The claim that sparked the viral post by “Ms. G” is almost certainly false. The articles to which it can be traced are all on questionable news sites, and back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest it’s highly implausible.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Blar Blar Blar! Self important tw*ts!
It is not made clear why carbon neutrality is the concern of a group dedicated to diversity, equity and inclusion
That’s absolutely clear: Just Like COVID-19 and systemic racism, it’s part of the same pseudo-revolutionary scam by the same (kind of) people. They have some set of policies they want to see implemented (like favoritism towards groups they want associate with), some set of fortunately silent (or even yet unborn) pitiful victims on whose behalf they claim to be speaking (like the poor and oppressed or our childrend and grandchildren) and some ill-defined problem with supposedly apocalyptic consequences which urgently needs to be addressed.
The only sensible way to deal with this is to reject it. The purposes of politics is to improve the present and not, to solve problems of future generations before they even manifest themselves. Future generations will have to look after themselves once the time has come for that, they’re going to face problems we don’t have an idea of yet and will address them with means which haven’t been invented so far. People who are permanently stuck in the middle of the 20th century ought to consider relegating themselves to museums instead of claiming their ever more distant past would really be the future.
If you go back to 1923 it would be impossible to predict what 2023 would look like. —–The Internet. Aeroplanes, Cars, Lighting, Gas central heating, Massive rise in life expectancy, Freedom from preventable diseases, Appliances to bring an end to back breaking labour etc etc etc etc. Trying to pretend you want to decarbonise for the benefit of future generations that will be 3 times wealthier than we are is mealy mouthed eco posturing that tries not to admit what climate change policies are really about, and they are mostly not about the climate. The amount of politicians who bleat about their “children and grandchildren” is vomit inducing. Especially as these same pretend to save the planet people are doing their best to remove the very fuels they will need to have the standard of living their grandfathers and grandmothers currently have. because you cannot power industrial society on wind, sun, hydrogen or tidal. Constant brainwashing today has a whole generation of young people who are clamouring for their own impoverishment and infact they glue themselves to the road and “demand” it.
“Trying to pretend you want to decarbonise for the benefit of future generations that will be 3 times wealthier than we are is mealy mouthed eco posturing…”
On current trajectories and unless we stop the Davos Deviants one thing I can absolutely guarantee is that future generations WILL NOT be three times wealthier than we are, three times poorer most probably.
What is having a “disproportionately harmful effect on the poor and the oppressed” is denying them fossil fuels. One billion people in the third world have no electricity. ——–Just take a moment to contemplate that. ————NO ELECTRICTY.— This is a diabolical disgrace. The EU (climate activists supreme) at one point spent vast sums on the idea that they could cover the Sahara in Solar Panels and import that electricity back into Europe. What a total smack in the face for the worlds poorest. The phony planet savers would deny these poor people access to fossil fuels that would bring them out of the abject misery of a stoneage existence, and then steal their sunshine and cable it all back to the wealthy EU.
And denying them food by closing down productive farms in western countries.
And trying to reduce CO2 (plant food) levels to reduce crop yields, even though this is not possible.
Talking of heights of absurdity, yet possibly sound business sense and an eye for money…
By co-incidence, an advert appeared today in my inbox for Boom Technology, which is seeking share capital and other funding to re-introduce supersonic flight. The brochure ingeniously leverages the customer desire for all things Green, by explaining how really expensive the pre-Green fuel bill was for supersonic flight, yet somehow fudges the issue of how Green fuel is even more expensive than aviation kerosene. Presumably the target customer base is rich Green virtue-signallers who will be persuaded that they are Saving The Planet by flying supersonic, “because it’s Green, innit?” Presumably government employees will also be encouraged to fly the green flag by going supersonic whenever possible, especially if they are Important People.
Assuming this is not mere pamphletware and prospectus fluff, I wonder where the money will actually come from? Will it be from early investors and government funding rather than customers, rather like domestic solar panels and windfarm owners? Who will keep it financially aloft when the Green Mania wears off, like the Railway Mania faded in the late 1840s ?
… which reminds me. Railway Mania was partly the invention of new technology but also partly the result of collusion between MPs and venture capitalists that caused all manner of Acts of Parliament to be passed to support building railways, some brilliantly conceived, some hopelessly economically, some unfortunate gambles, and some outright fraud on investors. Surely MPs these days don’t stoop to taking bribes, or aren’t just gullible dupes, to support massive financial scams perpetrated on small investors and the general public….???
But didn’t I read somewhere that internet servers worldwide use about 10% of all generated electricity, so putting stuff on-line only contributes to the need for that power and despite what claims are made, not all of it is “green”. Please correct me if I’m wrong.