Rental Affordability by Constituency (Part 2)
Those that live in labour party constituencies are most stretched when it comes to paying rent
Policy-makers pay a lot of attention to "House Price to Earnings" ratios, but with renting on the rise, "Rents to Earnings" ratios are becoming an increasingly important indicator.
In our previous analysis we used an approach pioneered by Professor Steve Wilcox at the University of York to look at relative rental affordability across London, broken down by MPs' patches. That article can be found here. Now we look at the overall averages by political party to see which voters are being stretched the most.
The first thing we noticed was that the proportion of income spent on rent is actually quite narrow, between 42% and 46%.
People in Labour constituencies are being stretched the most, with an average rent spend of 46%. The lowest rental affordability levels are Westminster North (Karen Buck), Holborn & St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and Bethnal Green & Bow (Rushanara Ali).
Close behind are the Liberal Democrat Constituencies with an average figure of 45%. People are being most stretched in Brent Central (Sarah Teather), Bermondsey & Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) and Hornsey & Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone).
The Conservative boroughs are most affordable with an average of 42%. For comparison the least affordable places to rent are the Cities of London & Westminster (Mark Field), Chelsea & Fulham (Greg Hands) and Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind).
In the Cities of London & Westminster rents are so high that the sample becomes very distorted, and should only be regarded as an indicative measure.
Data and methodology: We used the latest data from two of our favourite sources; rents data from the Valuation Office Agency and incomes data from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings. We used median rent figures for two-bedroom properties and gross full-time earnings for men and women.
For more detailed information on rents across London, please see our previous article Rents in London in 2012.
what proportion of income spent on rent is too much?