Where will the refugees coming to the UK live?

[Meeklynamechanged]

In no way a goady thread, I fully support helping the people fleeing such horrid circumstances, but genuine question.. where will they live? Where do we put people?

Where I live we have people waiting 10 years for a council property. Most areas around the UK have a huge deficit in available housing that doesn't meet demand.

With so many families stuck in overcrowded hostels and B&B's, families of 5 in 1 bed flats, I can't see where all of the required the housing will come from?

If a family with a higher banding/points of British nationality entered the list they would go above the refugee family

But if there was no refugee family, there would be two places available for UK families instead. It's simple maths, really

It isn't helpful or true to suggest that people in temporary housing are impacted by asylum seekers.

There are no links between the funding. If landlords wished to provide permanent housing to UK residents they would already be doing this.

There is no correlation between these two issues. It simply stirs up resentment towards asylum seekers to suggest there is.

There are no links between the funding

Yes, there is, and it has been explained clearly on this thread

No, there really hasn't.
This is an area I worked in for some time.

@PwySyddYma I am not saying that the people in the affected areas are I'm alright jack people who don't sympathize with refugees! FFS I was one of them and I live in the areas. I'd say that generally people do have a lot more understanding, like you say they understand what it's like to have no money, have to rely on food banks. But it's sickening to hear all the " it won't even affect you! And if it does, it's your own fault for not taking advantage of your education!"

One funding stream is from local authorities ( the area I worked in).

The other is central government.

@paddlingon

It isn't helpful or true to suggest that people in temporary housing are impacted by asylum seekers.

There are no links between the funding. If landlords wished to provide permanent housing to UK residents they would already be doing this.

There is no correlation between these two issues. It simply stirs up resentment towards asylum seekers to suggest there is.

Ok so where do the houses magically appear from?

[quote Theythinkitsalloveritisnow]@PwySyddYma I work with people with a variety of mental health, addiction and housing problems. What I see here is a massive amount of need and very little money. And taking in refugees will affect these people. And I am not saying it shouldn't happen, but there needs to be honesty and a proper explanation as to how it will be made to work. Magical thinking of the " it's different housing so it won't affect anyone" is bollocks and just pointless[/quote]

There is different accommodation to begin with. So the refugees are housed in NASS accommodation this is paid for and owned by the home office.

They are evicted from these practically overnight once their residency and NI numbers are given.

Then they enter the general needs tenancy list of they want.

So if you had a single woman with severe mental health and substance misuse, and let's say ex offender homeless on prison release, they'd be awarded priority need. Due to vulnerability - placed in temp accommodation awaiting general needs tenancy.

Single refuge male, with entitlement now to public funding. No health issues, no offending history - homeless but not priority need. They would get housing points but with entitlement to UC and housing costs they'd be encourage to source private rent, or sleep rough/sofa surf with friends awaiting LA allocation. Their council homeless case officer will assist them with bond board applications to secure private rent if needed.

The refugees allocated to each of the 343 local authorities in the UK based on availability of housing will have no significant impact. Honestly, 3 -5 more families on the list awaiting allocation the same as any other family will not have this apocalyptic impact on the social housing that people are foreseeing. They don't jump to the top, they don't get extra points, they don't get extra money. They are simply just 3-5 more families waiting patiently on the list like everyone else.

@mustlovegin

If a family with a higher banding/points of British nationality entered the list they would go above the refugee family

But if there was no refugee family, there would be two places available for UK families instead. It's simple maths, really

Yes and if British landlords stopped acting illegally and evicting British families without due process there would be a lot less British people on the list. If the British government invested in social housing appropriately there would be more social houses available.

Swings and roundabouts, simple maths really.

The local people I worked with were convinced that the asylum seekers were pulling a fast one somehow.

They weren't.

They were both underfunded but by totally different and unrelated areas of government.

It has only got worse since then.

There are lots of housing that local residents seeking permanent social housing can't access, almost all of the local housing stock in fact.

If these houses were available for long term permanent rental for social housing tenants they would have been offered them.

Asylum seekers are not depriving locals of long term social housing.

The landlords letting do not wish to let to long term locals or they would be doing so.

The systematic destruction of the council housing my grandparents lived in is depriving locals of their social housing not asylum seekers.

@PwySyddYma please don't start lecturing me about this, I have far too much experience of this from both personal and a professional perspective

I admit I am not an expert regarding asylum law but I do a lot have a lot of experience abound social housing and problems people have. And I really dislike the patronising I know better attitude of some people who work in the area but regard the people they are supposed to be helping as some kind of lesser being.

Personally I've housed more refugee families in PRS (private rent sector) than British families. With direct payment to landlord and full housing cost paid by UC set up and a bond guarantee from the LA, they do seem to be easier to get in to PRS.

Mainly because they have no credit history as weird as that sounds, so I'm not having to convince a private landlord to take on a family with CCJ's or negative credit records, which unfortunately many UK national families have through no fault of their own due to low UC income.

Our LA also has a preferred private landlord list where they are more accepting/easier to access/make deals with. So we access the PRS as often as we physically can.

[quote Theythinkitsalloveritisnow]@PwySyddYma please don't start lecturing me about this, I have far too much experience of this from both personal and a professional perspective

I admit I am not an expert regarding asylum law but I do a lot have a lot of experience abound social housing and problems people have. And I really dislike the patronising I know better attitude of some people who work in the area but regard the people they are supposed to be helping as some kind of lesser being.[/quote]
I'm not inferring anyone is lesser than the other, if anything I'm saying everyone is treated the same, and rightly so (with exception to priority need allocation because there are complex factors that do seperate people by need/vulnerability) .

So I'm not sure where you've drawn that conclusion from.

@mustlovegin

but why is lack of social housing the fault of a family fleeing terror?

Nobody is saying that they are guilty of anything, just that there are not sufficient resources to go around. Why is this concept so difficult to understand for some?

That's nonsense though. There are plenty as others have explained, with specific numbers if you read the thread.

@mustlovegin

Many people do not understand the financial system at all, sadly

I know perfectly well how the financial system works, thanks

So now in order to justify your self-indulgent rhetoric you are resorting to pretending that money is not real, that it doesn't exist? It's the lowest of the low IMO

Also, parroting incessantly that there's enough resources in the UK to support an unlimited influx of people doesn't make it true.

Oh for goodness sake. I'm talking about well established tenets of economics. Nobody said that "money isn't real".

I guess this type of bizarre comment highlights the problem with not teaching economics in school and why I believe it's absolutely deliberate that it's not on the national curriculum yet taught in almost every private school and many of our politicians studied it at degree level. Go figure.

@PwySyddYma

Personally I've housed more refugee families in PRS (private rent sector) than British families. With direct payment to landlord and full housing cost paid by UC set up and a bond guarantee from the LA, they do seem to be easier to get in to PRS.

Mainly because they have no credit history as weird as that sounds, so I'm not having to convince a private landlord to take on a family with CCJ's or negative credit records, which unfortunately many UK national families have through no fault of their own due to low UC income.

Our LA also has a preferred private landlord list where they are more accepting/easier to access/make deals with. So we access the PRS as often as we physically can.

So basically you are saying refugees do get housed more quickly and most likely in better conditions, but yeah continue with your unpleasant patronising shit, I'm going to bed. And I feel a great deal of sympathy for anyone who gets you working with them. No doubt you'll sleep well in a warm glow of superiority

If these landlords were open to renting long term to locals they have every opportunity to do so.

The fact the landlords don't feel comfortable doing do has nothing to do with asylum seekers.

Why landlords don't want to provide long term housing to social tenants is a totally different question.

But probably one worth asking.

itis difficult because like it or not it does affect people in poor areas. It would be lovely if there was enough social housing for everyone in need

More nonsense. It should be obvious the social housing is most scarce in highly populated areas where housing is more expensive. Have a look at the waiting lists around the country. The longest ones are in so called "rich" areas where the housing costs and cost of living are highest (therefore a higher proportion of families in need of help) and housing is most scarce because there are more people.

@VioletSand god above there is no point discussing things with someone so utterly detached from reality

@TableFlowerss

I’m struggling to understand why people don’t think we should help these poor people!

Yes there’s shit going on here, but fuck me, the shut they have to put up with would get far worse. These people are literally going to have the worst possible life imaginable, particularly the women, if they are forced to stay there.

In the grand scheme of things, 20,000 people is nothing, especially when we’ll be helping protect them from potentially death.

Everyone here is entitled to an education. There are jobs and yes things are expensive but some people don’t help themselves either….

Not sure why this post provoked such rage as it's all factual. 🤷🏻‍♀️

[quote Theythinkitsalloveritisnow]@VioletSand god above there is no point discussing things with someone so utterly detached from reality[/quote]
Do explain please as I cannot make any sense of your post.

@Fangdango

No they do not. Kids pay no income tax and can't vote for example. The groups of people who live here and those who can vote here are like a venn diagram with largely overlapping circles. But the group of people who pay tax here and the group who can vote should absolutely allign. That means all that pay income taxes should be able to vote, as well as some others.

Fair point - I may have misunderstood you? There were a couple of posts from people upthread suggesting that only those paying income taxes should be consulted. My point was that we don't make tax, property ownership etc criteria for voters' rights - aka share in policy making.

Not sure I'd agree with extending the franchise to everyone paying income tax - temporary residents, foreign citizens etc. People who choose to come and work here (or who pay capital gains tax or VAT here) wouldn't necessarily expect that, would they? But I don't know much about the disenfranchised groups you mention and I don't think we disagree on the point I tried to make.

Yes they should absolutely get a say in how money is spent if they are resident here and working and paying tax. What possible justification would there be to exclude them?

The UK approach is bonkers. If you were born in Pakistan or Canada or India and lived in the UK in 2016 you could vote in the referendum (whether you work or not!) but long-term residents who work and pay lots of tax who were born in Spain or France etc could not. How is that fair or logical?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58186519

David Skelton: Is a new form of snobbery reshaping British politics?
By Brian Wheeler

Snobbery is a very British vice - but according to the author of a new book it is no longer about looking down on people for having the wrong accent or manners.

The "new snobbery" is a form of condescension practised by university-educated "progressives" - directed at people they consider ignorant and bigoted, David Skelton argues.

He believes it is the biggest fault line in British politics, and could lead to the Conservative Party staying in power for the foreseeable future

Skelton is one of the most influential centre-right thinkers in the country, whose previous book, Little Platoons, contained the seeds of Boris Johnson's flagship "levelling up" policy.

He is also a native of north-east England, having grown up in Consett, a former steel town in the Pennine foothills, which like other former Labour strongholds elected a Conservative MP in 2019.

I'm not quite sure what you want...you don't want refugee families to impact social housing, and now you don't want them to impact the unsecure PRS sector which in turn would free up social housing for families unable to access the PRS. 🤷🏻‍♀️

We have to house people, we have to house them as quickly as we possibly can due to government guidance. British or refugee. The Welsh Assembly have very strict governance on how long people/families can stay in temporary, so it really is all hands on deck every day to get everyone housed by any means possible. All the same regardless of nationality or where they were born.