AIBU to ask if the plan to 'prioritise British families' for social housing is an attack on asylum seekers or a long overdue reform?

[Locutus2000]

The Grauniad (again, sorry)

Highlights:

Downing Street wants to give UK families higher priority for social housing in a controversial scheme that will be badged as “British homes for British workers”, the Guardian can reveal.

Polly Neate, chief executive of the housing charity Shelter, said: “This policy amounts to nothing more than scapegoating at its worst. It is unnecessary, unenforceable and unjust. Not only does it ignore the fact that there are already stringent rules so only UK citizens or those with settled status can access homes for social rent, but it blames a group of people for a housing emergency that they did not create.”

Under current rules, local housing authorities are meant to decide social housing allocation based on need, giving priority to those who are homeless or living in overcrowded or squalid conditions. Refugees are allowed to claim social housing, but anyone who is not entitled to benefits is not, meaning most foreigners in the UK are already excluded.

Ministers could also seek to strengthen the rules introduced by the Brown government so that people have to show they have stronger or longer connections to an area before being given priority for housing.

It just seems like dog-whistling to the faction incensed by 'foreigners' taking all the social housing. Equally, there is sod all social housing left and I can understand people's frustration. My elderly neighbours are still bitter about being 'pushed out' of London and perceive this to be a result of immigration.

I can see this being a popular policy even if based on a dubious perception.

• Note from MNHQ: Title has been edited at the OP's request to include the words 'for social housing'.

well some will see it as racist because any topic with immigrants in the subject line incites calls of racism. But, pretty much every single other country in the world, including the most left leaning socialist nations,
prioritises their population first. I'm
not why that's even controversial.

I think the point being made is that it's an unnecessary populist policy. Unnecessary because refugees already can't access social housing. The problems with lack of social housing are not down to hoarded of illegal immigrants getting handed housing. That's just not what is happening

I’m confused by this part:

In the London borough of Brent, 40% of new social homes were let to foreign nationals in 2021-22, while in Southwark the figure was 29%.

Do they mean refugees?

Pretty much.

This isn't going to actually help anyone.

It's dog whistle posturing while achieving nothing practical.

Homes should go to working people, especially those on lower wages and in London where accommodation costs are through the roof.

Surely a policy along those lines would help employment.

So the subject of immigration, the majority of immigrants do want to work especially economic migrants. I can't point towards stats to back up that statement but I can't believe they'd want to make the effort and live on benefits which aren't that generous.

Refugees with refugee status can access housing/benefits

I think you mean someone who is seeking asylum whose claim has not yet been successful. They do not access housing/benefits through the normal route they are supported by central government, housed in (usually) condemmed and not fit for purpose housing and given 80% of the UC rates (unless its gone up)

Not all foreign nationals are refugees. Why would they be?

It’s an election year and they want votes from British families who are on the housing list and don’t know that asylum seekers aren’t the reason for the shortage

Winning votes by scratching a bigots itch

You're conflating immigrants and illegal immigrants. 🤷‍♀️ They're not all the same.

It’s something that should be looked at. Otherwise it’s trying to bail out a leaky boat. Migrants will have to work out if they can afford to live in the UK by renting or buying as there is NO spare housing right now.
Not racist.

What have they done in the last decade to help British people? Other than themselves and their rich mates?

@Bigearringsbigsmile, it's not bigoted to think a country should prioritise their population first as @alivio says.

Either way though, there should be wayyy more social housing.

It's bollocks they have fucked the housing system by selling it all off and not building enough new places . Not fault of 'forriners'

Exactly. But the reason this type of ‘policy’ works, in election year, is precisely because of the kind of response that came first on this thread.

I mean it might have been more meaningful if it was coming from a Tory party that hadn’t been in power for the last fourteen years and solely responsible for the current policy, but y’know. I’d like to say - do they think people are stupid? - but it’s pointless because the fact is, plenty of them clearly are.

They do this on purpose.

They use woolly phrases, such as "foreign nationals" to get people confused. Also to imply that its 'illegal immigrants'.

Foreign nationals could be anything. It depends on what you class as a foreign national.

• person A is a British citizen, but married/paternered with someone from (for example) Poland/USA/France/India. - have they included this person as a foreign national in the statistics?
• People with dual nationalities. I am both British and French, hold both passports. If I get social.housing am I classed as a foreign national? Which nationality Dues the council use?
• Granted Refugee status - do the foreign nationals include people who have been granted refugee status and therefore eligible to apply for appropriate social benefits? Does this take into account anyone applying for UK citizenship?
• British Citizens born abroad. There are a number of people, myself included, which are British citizens, but were born abroad. Very common in Military, Diplomatic etc. Some departments - looking at you DVLA - imply we are foreign nationals, as we weren't born in the UK, but hold UK passports.

It used to be that (if your children are of the oppisite sex), when the eldest is 10, you are entitled to a social house with more bedrooms so the kids have a bedroom each? Not sure what the rules are now. It seems to have changed but the wording is so purposely confusing 😖

I mean if someone has paid into the welfare state for 40 years and their children need social housing why shouldn’t they get priority for housing over someone who has only just been granted a right to stay and not paid a single penny into the country. Because atm that is exactly what is happening it’s correct that illegal immigrants aren’t entitled to housing but that doesn’t speak to the thousands that are awarded right to stay and are being given priority for housing as they are assessed on merits as if they have contributed equally. Also it’s worth noting that in London most of the available housing is going to people born outside the uk. Guess it depends if you think your parents and grandparents contributions should count I’m of the opinion that they should.

Suspicion is that it is a signpost for those who would consider voting con but are wavering. They’ve been in government for nearly 14 years in one form or another. I actually agree with the principle but the timing is cynical.

People who have no "approved right" to live in the UK cannot access social housing anyway. Those who have the right to live and work in the UK should be housed based on their need. This is just another knee-jerk policy to blame those pesky foreigners and small boats for an inept and moribund government. Why is there a shortage of social housing? One word answer - Tories. They sold off loads of it and ensured that there was insufficient new stock built.

I think it's a ridiculous gimmick trying to win votes off nationalists and racists.
Because technically that's the way it worked anyway.. obviously people who already have citizenship are given social housing first.. how on earth would an asylum seeker even get that? They go thru years of being put up in hotels etc.. I know this via the mental health service I work for which sometimes deals with people who do not have citizenship.
Very hard to find accommodation even when the person is extremely mentally unwell.
This is an absolute gimmick that just encourages resentment towards asylum sekers who are still some of the most vulnerable people in our country.
All a smoke screen to drum up votes and have an effectively voiceless group blamed for issues actually caused by intentional government cutbacks to public services

its pre election nonsense, this government has no intention to build more social housing so what exactly is going to change.

refugees have no right to council houses anyway.

if they gave a shit they'd be on a massive building kick rather than letting developers build poor doors and zombie blocks sold to foreign investors.

let alone foreign governments having large stakes in our utilities services and owning our government buildings.

The problem is that there are a lot of people who are at the stage of not having paid into the system for 40 years (or anywhere near it).

As for grandparents or parents, getting a home is nothing like getting a passport.

But what if the next generation have never worked, never contributed to the tax system and have claimed benefits all their lives. Do they get the benefits of their elders efforts?
My children do not need to buy a house just because I have, that makes no sense, they need to stand on their own feet, be responsible adults and contribute just like I do, no special treatment because of my efforts.

Again- and I dont know why people get so confused about this

A refugee does have access to social housing and public funds. A refugee is someone who has refugee status.

Someone still seeking asylum does not have access to social housing and public funding

I agree with your other points.