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'.

So should a British citizen who has worked and paid tax for x number of years be prioritised over a British citizen who have never worked?

That would then have you prioritising low paid workers over say single parents or disabled people who cannot work for various reasons.

It's should be based on need. And as stated on here you can't get a house unless you are given citizenship

No of course its not racist to prioritise British families in Britain. In fact its about bloody time they did.

It is genuinely a complete mystery to me why it is so controversial for a country to prioritise the needs of its own citizens over those of other nationalities.
I also suspect those shouting the loudest are not desperate for social housing themselves so have the luxury of looking down their noses at the opinions of people who are genuinely affected by the situation

You need the social housing to be there in numbers. So it would just be a theory in practice. Then of course after five years leave to remain, someone can apply for UK citizenship in any case.

@Katypp do you really believe that this government would prioritise British born people if every foreign born person was removed from the equation? Because we have some pretty strong evidence from the past thirteen years that they wouldn’t. They would have done that already wouldn’t they?

They’re happy to invoke the image of a ‘hard working family’ but they do bugger all for anybody.

It's a good dog whistle for an election year. It will no doubt be very well received by the racist voters that the Tories are going after.

Good thinking, Rishi.

The ridiculous knee-jerk cries of racism, bigotry and dog-whistle on this thread are as depressing as they are unsurprising and unthinking.

A government's first duty is to the people of its country. Of course nationals should be prioritised for resources. The main concern is why it took so long for the UK to implement what other countries do as a matter of course and all previous governing parties are to blame as well. It isn't racism, it's a government doing its job. Now we just need more social housing which again is the fault of successive governments.

The interesting word I see in the title is "Workers"

No, they mean people legally resident in the UK, with foreign passports. So Nigerian, Bangladeshi, Turkish, Somali, Indian immigrants, who have lived here perfectly legally for years, possibly even born here, and who are likely working, but who have the shocking boldness to qualify for affordable housing.

Yep. I guess the Tories are thinking that they can target multiple popular scapegoats in one fell swoop. Very efficient.

If the Tories hadn't sold off all the social housing this wouldn't be an issue. They've created this mess and they are now looking for a scapegoat to hang it on. It's what they always do. It's always the immigrants, the disabled, the benefit "scroungers", single mothers (oh and don't forget Europe!). it's the same every time. Why people keep falling for these blatantly obvious diversion/electioneering tactics that they use time and time again I don't know. Wise up people!!!

Oh, really? Where would you like the non-working disabled to live?

Posted this in another thread...

Unfortunately, the Tories will keep falling back on this kind of strategy because they know it really works!!

Warehouses, we covered that already.

They’ve realised they can’t get the votes of the working poor as they have made their lives hell so think dangling the carrot of ‘homes for workers’ will win them back 🤦‍♀️

All well and good but it’s a bit much to ask that for some bizarre reason anyone should think that this government have suddenly started doing their jobs. As opposed to the dog whistling and race baiting that has been their currency for at least the past eight years…

They've not cared for the past 14 years and they don't care now

They're getting desperate.

If they actually allowed Asylum Seekers to work whilst awaiting a decision on their refugee status they might be able to be in a position to go into private rented accommodation rather than the costly and often inappropriate homelessness system.
But the Daily Mail readers would be up in arms about that no doubt.

If they are worried about the effect that foreign nationals are having in the housing market … why not stop foreign investors buying up large swathes of housing in major cities, they strangulating (fixing) the rental market … or worse, buying properties , they leave empty, to launder dirty money.

No political party in this country is innocent of racism, it's not unique to the Tories. I don't care who does it, I just care that it's done. The responses on this thread would be totally different if it was a Labour policy though.

Seems fair enough to me. 👍

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

There is absolutely no way this will happen.
Anyone who believes it will is gullible to the enth. It's nothing more than scapegoating dogwhistling to rile up the dense of thinking and secure their votes. Once your 'its us versus foreigners' vote is in the bag they'll revert to shitting all over the working classes again.

There's not even enough social housing to prioritise people anyway, because government were never interested in building it. Says a lot. When will people learn that money talks the loudest? Those with megabucks to afford 2nd & 3rd homes, buy huge properties and leave them mostly empty are never, ever going to be shunted over for the sake of freeing up property and even if they were, it definitely wouldn't be for social housing use.

It’s a complicated and inflammatory subject so I’m not sure what the answer is but in Thailand for example you as a foreign national you used to not be able to purchase property unless you also owned a business. Other countries have other restrictions.

A government's first duty is to the people of its country. Of course nationals should be prioritised for resources. The main concern is why it took so long for the UK to implement what other countries do as a matter of course

They haven't done it yet, @Alltheprettyseahorses, and almost certainly won't - partly as they won't have time and also because it's far more likely to be a vote-fishing headline than any real reflection of intent

For those mentioning asylum seekers, it's also true that in theory they have no access to such housing. That only happens once Indefinite Leave to Remain is granted, though it's clouded by many only having got this via amnesties, pressure to clear cases and so on