please empty your brain below
If the number of cars parked in front of a house is 50% or more the number of wheelie bins it has then its probably a wealthy area.

Still Anon | 01.11.25 - 8:19 a.m. | #

Wow, so Susan Hall represents the least deprived area in London.

TW | 01.11.25 - 8:20 a.m. | #

This data will be.useful next year when, following the shock of Reform UK doing so well in London elections everyone starts looking for reasons. In recent elections in my home federal state in Germany (NRW) the right wing AFD did best in areas of high social deprivation which did not always match areas of high non—ethnics. That said I do not expect anyone to use this data in any useful way to solve the very clear problems that are stoking the rise of the right in Europe. That would require characteristics in our politicians at all levels that are pretty much extinct since the turn of the century. Rant over - l hope I am proved wrong.

Keith the Kraut | 01.11.25 - 8:36 a.m. | #

Writing from 33,599 (in which I came to live by chance, and I'm sure we are one of the poorest households) - definitely suburban (or exurban) comfort rather than gated opulence hereabouts.

In the 2005 IMD the most deprived LSOA in London was tucked in the estates off Church Street Market - 87th. Very few below 1,000 now - I don't think the poorest households are any less deprived, there are just fewer left around.

Nico | 01.11.25 - 9:34 a.m. | #

Interesting. I would have assumed one f the Billionaire enclaves like Bishop's Avenue or Kensington Palace Gardens might have been top, but I guess the areas used were large enough to includes some less expensive houses.

Mikey C | 01.11.25 - 10:21 a.m. | #

i like the fact that the savoy is in a neighbourhood that is more deprived than 73% of neighbourhoods.

I thin the data is importante but it really doesn't deal with extremes very well. It even is explicit about how it' doesn't really work for rural areas.

Alistair twin | 01.11.25 - 11:01 a.m. | #

I had a play with the map earlier this week, and the data throws up some unexpected results indeed. My partner is always saying what a nice suburb we live in, but we're in a 'more deprived' area.

Deprived area resident | 01.11.25 - 1:15 p.m. | #

Interesting choice by the statisticians to use the word "deprived". It seems to imply that someone or something has actively prevented the households in question from having things. Who or what has done the depriving?

Malcolm of Kent | 01.11.25 - 2:29 p.m. | #

Is this the closest I've been to you? My house is 50m outside that "least deprived" area, in one of the 1930s houses of which there are many inside the area, as well as the more modern mainly detached houses
I am amazed by the statistics, regardless of the exact criteria. Although all the houses in the area are nice enough; they are "nothing special" for suburban London. I would have thought there even other small areas within Harrow with "better" properties; let alone the rest of London. Mayfair? Hampstead Garden Suburbs? Many others?

MikeK | 01.11.25 - 2:40 p.m. | #

The dubious and querulous should read the statisticians' 93 page research report.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 01.11.25 - 3:12 p.m. | #

An area whose housing is too expensive is penalised. Areas in the middle of town have great accessibility but it can't make up for the pollution and noise and crime and lack of private outdoor space. Wealthy low-density areas can lack transport (because cars don't count) and walkable amenities.

The very rich have their problems like the rest of us. And for this problem-focused index, things which are not a problem score the same as things which are very very not a problem.

All of London has better air quality than it did last time around. That's going to help our scores. Hurrah for ULEZ and the 20mph zones.

HTFB | 01.11.25 - 5:00 p.m. | #

Is there some correlation between deprivation indices and white vans?

ActonMan | 01.11.25 - 5:35 p.m. | #

When I've had a spot of property envy during my perambulations in London, Hatch End has never featured! I live only 3 miles away, but in terms of affluence, a whole world away!

Cornish Cockney | 01.11.25 - 7:08 p.m. | #

Some of these area (LSOAs) are really weird shapes- Camden's chunk of Regent's Park, for example, encompasses those wealthy houses on the side and then reaches over to hook Tolmer's Square estate... ends up looking very weird. Would love to see an investigation into why the areas look this way if you're looking for topics geezer!

Flakes | 01.11.25 - 11:39 p.m. | #

Thank you for this rabbit hole

Caroline | 02.11.25 - 10:13 a.m. | #

Fascinating data. Clearly I need to move four houses down the road as the adjacent statistical unit is twenty thousand places above mine.

Any such discontinuities surely result from the arbitrary delineation required to produce units of approximately equal population :-)

Michael T | 02.11.25 - 12:20 p.m. | #

If I've understood the data correctly, I live somewhere averagely average - 164th out of 296 local authorities, and more deprived than 52% of neighbourhoods.

Alan S | 02.11.25 - 2:57 p.m. | #

Agree with Malcolm of Kent. The use of "deprivation" to mean poverty is sociologists' cant. It assumes that the default is adequate provision, and that anyone lacking it has been "deprived" of it (implicitly, by those who have more than enough).
It complacently assumes the existence of the wealth that had been built up in the UK over many generations. The authors of this report can't be blamed for using this definition, as they had no licence to update the vocabulary, but the politicians do have that freedom.

Summerton | 02.11.25 - 3:00 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy