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'.

If only we had a national shortage of politicians eh?

WORKING British people.

Doesn't Keir Starmer keep saying that Labour will “govern for working people” as “the party of working people”? Or is that just a meaningless sound bite.

@Clavinova I see you’ve phrased and punctuated that as a question but somehow I think you’ve already answered your own question.

A quarter of working age people don’t work.

Which is weird when we have a government boasting of low unemployment rates against a backdrop of industry specific shortages. It’s almost like investing in training would be the first thing a government wanting to ‘prioritise our own’ would want to do…. Yet here we are.

This is one of those right wing ideas that pops up in election years. We had a row about this at work last time it came up. My and my mate who both knew nothing about how 'council housing ' is allocated went off to research it and we found that you have to be British or have leave to remain with access to public funds to be eligible.

And also no council collects data on the grounds of immigrant or foreign or religion or British born or whatever, not because of woke but because its considered a potential breach of equality law to check.

So if the tories want their nasty racist housing policy in place they will have to pass some new laws. Have to win an actual election first.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/26/keir-starmer-will-let-100000-foreign-lorry-drivers/

I worked in social housing for decades. We had section 106 properties sold to our HA by developers every couple of years. South East so massive waiting lists. The council had the list and we'd get their nomination list when the block was handed over to us. A great deal of the noms were foreign nationals with leave to remain (so came via the asylum system) and people from the EU. Whilst many of those from the EU worked, they were in such low paid jobs that they also qualified for HB and had children, so were in no way net contributors.

@clarinova

There I was thinking you might actually engage in some sort of dialogue instead of posting links that only cement your clear position without any further fleshing out.

🙄

Whilst many of those from the EU worked, they were in such low paid jobs that they also qualified for HB and had children, so were in no way net contributors

Hmmm, yes but considering carers, many NHS employees and many more are low paid positions and considered pretty essential for a society to function smoothly it’s probably prudent to consider more than the tax gain/loss alone before deciding someone is worthy or not.

I mean it’s unlikely anyone in a position to qualify for social housing currently is a net contributor. I don’t think it’s the best criteria to argue about who is ‘deserving’ when essentially no one is by that measure.

Ooh the British workers may have done these low paid jobs if there had been the offer of social housing and we wouldn't have had to keep importing more workers from abroad?

It works though. Look at Brexit!

I do think if there is a points based system that paying nothing ever should be penalised.

This is the kind of shit that will get the tories voted back in. Divide and conquer and the bigots fall for it every time. Yes I'll happily pay more for everything and have a shit quality of life as long as we keep those foreigners out

I didn't say I had an answer. I realise that people have a need to live near their support network.

At some point unpopular decisions will need to be made though, as no government, or wannabe government, appear to have any intention of addressing the root cause which is a lack of affordable housing in the places that need it.

So you think someone should be penalised if e.g. they're too disabled to work and therefore haven't paid in?

Not at all. I think someone too disabled to work should get a lot of points to take them to the top of the list.

the reality of that though is people who have never contributed anything and need state support, have nothing. It’s a very specific group of people. What exactly are you going to penalise?

The consequences and costs associated with taking more off people (with nothing remember) don’t work out. The inevitable consequence is a rise in crime, From stealing to begging, and social issues rising from homelessness and lack of necessities such as food and clothing.

Eventually you reach a position where not only did this group find themselves at a disadvantage in society in the first place but that they are actively being kept there. You only have to look at the average life of a person in poverty in countries that don’t support their poorest at a state level (pick any country with slums - Brazil, India…). Personally I don’t think that’s justifiable in any country with more than enough resources to provide a layer of support for people to raise themselves out of poverty. For now, the UK is one of those countrys - thinking that we should actively be taking more away from the very poorest instead of the Moanes, Windsor’s and Sunaks of this world is bonkers and arguably psychotic.

Ooh the British workers may have done these low paid jobs if there had been the offer of social housing and we wouldn't have had to keep importing more workers from abroad?

@greengreengrass25

quite possibly, neither of us actually know since it hasn’t been tried has it? It’s not a new concept to have housing provided with a job, in fact it’s a relatively new phenomenon that it’s not.

That’s relying very heavily on having a system that uses people to judge levels of disability and capabilities. Currently, using PIP as a guide, it’s not infallible and still leaves people with very clear disabilities/capabilities without support. PIP was meant to support the disability regardless of work capability but often now people find that they have their claim dismissed on the basis that they have even the most part time/unstable employment directly due to their disability.

Even if PIP is awarded it’s reviewed every couple of years because there’s no function to recognise the permanence of a condition or disability unless you have a very clear terminal diagnosis.

It’s a very clumsy and expensive way of distributing support for the disabled.

I think we need to provide support to everyone and am keen to take more from those who are hoarding wealth to provide opportunities for those who do not have the same privilege.

I just realise that there are limited resources. We have to have a priority system and I think it should be points based. People who contribute should be rewarded. People should grow up with the knowledge that they are expected to pay in and that others will be prioritised over them if they do not. Perhaps they could earn points through volunteering, participating in training etc.

We need to make provision for those who cannot contribute. That needs to be funded by everyone who can contribute doing so.

At any point, too many people are waiting and that is a big problem. We do need a think about who we want to be at the top of the list.

I used to be the housing officer for a large popular estate in the south east. We had about fifty percent working tenants, about twenty percent pensioners/disabled tenants and the rest single parents who didn't work because they had young kids. It was an old style estate with a local housing office and the tenants would come in to report repairs, pay rent, report asb and often just have a chat when they were passing. It worked really well as a community. We had a long internal waiting list for the very few four and five bedroom properties we owned as some of our tenants were very overcrowded (I remember one woman with 7 kids in a 3 bed house)

The council stopped us doing internal transfers and all properties had to go via them for nomination. You can imagine the outrage when the bigger properties were filled by recent arrivals to the UK when the existing tenants were overcrowded.

The problem was that we had properties in the north that were hard to let because nobody wanted to live in the north, and a shortage of expensive homes in the south east which were in demand.

Yes that's exactly the problem

Why couldn't the new arrivals go up North.

However it is irresponsible imo to have 7 dc if you can't really afford them and expect the government to provide a larger house

Hmm...... having recently worked in social care by my eyes have been well and truly opened.

I saw first hand several people jumping the queue, accessing services/support and being treated much more favourably than British citizens who had lived and worked here all their lives and had contributed to the system.

I honestly would have never believed it before because I always thought it was a bit of an Alf Garnett opinion.

Examples I could give are pretty shocking but I can't post them as I would totally out myself!

I saw first hand several people jumping the queue, accessing services/support and being treated much more favourably than British citizens who had lived and worked here all their lives and had contributed to the system.

Examples I could give are pretty shocking but I can't post them

So we just take your word for all that?

About time.

I've sadly not had my contract renewed out the blue by my boss. It's a relief in a way, the guys a total arse, and I spent more time dealing with high court bailiffs than customers. He's in a n eye watering amount of debt.

The issue is my home comes with my job. And overnight, I have no job. DH worked with me, so he has been let go too. So now, neither of us has an income until I can find a new position. Which is proving difficult.

It's a grey area with regards our situation, with normal landlords you get your section 21 to.quit because you have a tenancy. We don't. As a result we've been told to leave by the end of the month.

I called my local council who said they can't help. They simply don't have temp accomodation for homeless families because what they used to use has been commandeered for undocumented migrants. That they can offer to put out two DCs in foster care (yeah right) but that's it. We will have to find out own accommodation. We live in a big town centre.

So I've called lettings agents and contacted landlords. No interest. We have no job, so have had to apply for UC. So they won't touch us. Their mortgages don't allow them to rent to social tenants. Or they simply ask us for 6 months to a year's rent in advance. That's been the constant request. And we do have savings. But these I begrudge giving to someone when we hopefully will find a new live in position asap. We were told by 4 of them that this is seen as rent in advance deposit so not refundable which I sure I'd against the law but who knows with landlords now.

If it wasn't for us having a good friend locally who is going abroad and allowing us to house sit his house, we would face the reality of sleeping in our car with two dcs. And no one cares. We aren't a priority was what I was told by the local council. We are also homeless due to our own fault apparently although how she worked that out I've no idea.

Yes we should be helping our own first. I work hard as does my DH, we have paid into the system yet it's failed at us the worst time.