End in sight for toxic and corrosive "needs" based allocation system?
30/08/2010 7:51 am
"How thousands of council homes go to foreigners"
A classic DM article without doubt. What a soft touch basket case of a country we have become.
However how much of this is grandstanding. Local connection is used by many LAs. That does not get them around the law however. Will Shapps bite the bullet and reform the definition of statutory homelessness that the second and third worlders use all the time to get an allocation? The noises are right but without legal reform, they are precisely that and nothing will change on the ground...
Sort: Newest first | Oldest first
30/08/2010 9:38 pm
Not even the most right wing governemnt would be able to change the needs-based letting.
There would be riot in the streets for a start if those most in need would be left on the street. No British government of any tendency will ever want that.
The Daily Mail waffles is all spin to keep posters like you dreaming and voting tory. If you have not realised that by now you really are very sad cases.
30/08/2010 10:12 pm
Err...with only 18% of all tenure being social housing I really don't see any "riots" in the near future about this issue.
Yes, only a really "right wing" government would want to return to merit based allocation. You know, the form of allocation that was the norm from the 1945 Labour Government all the way to through to the late Seventies. Clearly all the older generation of tenants who were housed under the old merit system do not deserve to be living there under kass rules.
(k)ass you really are worth of your name...
30/08/2010 10:36 pm
You really have no clue. It does not matter if in the country social housing is 18% or 5%. People will riot - many of them from middle classes - if the needs-allocations is abolished and destitutes andtheir families are thrown on the streets.
Not even the BNP in governement would be able to change the needs-allocations.
Harking back to Labour 1945 - ironically for a right wing - makes no sense now. just in case you missed it, The situation is completely different, ours has not been a post-war economy for 70 years,
The Daily Maily publishes all that stuff because it's for the only readership the cater for, and the paper can only survive doing that.
30/08/2010 11:20 pm
We shall see,,,
30/08/2010 11:22 pm
It is much more likely that people will riot unless needs-based letting is abolished.
A method which favours immigrants against indigenous residents is a recipe for mayhem.
Luckily, the Daily Mail runs a vox-pop on this issue in its story and guess what - over 97% are against a system which allocate social housing to immigrants.
31/08/2010 8:44 am
Am I in some sort of parallel universe or has someone just tried to prove their point by saying that 97% of Daily Mail readers are against a system to allocate social housing to immigrants? What about the other 3%? surely they can't be real Daily Mail readers, they must have just been "passing through"....
31/08/2010 9:39 am
"...Luckily, the Daily Mail runs a vox-pop on this issue in its story and guess what - over 97% are against a system which allocate social housing to immigrants."
And what was the question put to each reader: "Should the state allocate social housing to immigrants?"
It does not seem a fair way of dealing with needs based allocation.
The question should be: "Should the state allocate social housing to those most in need?"
I bet even the DM 97% readership would say yes. But then i am equally sure that the DM would not publish these results, and that's why they have put "immmigrants" in the question, so they would get the results for them to manipulate their own readers intho anti-immigrant hostility.
31/08/2010 10:41 am
I was going to show how stupid the Daily Mail and ILAG are but i think Kass beat me to it.
Also picking up on CWs post on another thread. ILAG seems to have developed an anon follower who agrees with his posts shortly after he has posted, a little suspicious although if i had as ridicualous views as ILAG i would have to make up a friend aswell.
31/08/2010 10:53 am
Poor old ILAG - his reason for existing is an almost biblical faith in Migration Watch beliefs and the evangelical outpourings from the Daily Mail. Now this person who imagines that there remains a great communist plot to take over this once green and pleasant land (presumably before the last inch is sold to foreign interest as a result of the ILAG pro-policies), and also sees illegal immigrants around every corner, and obviously lives in the middle of a community that Fagan still calls the shots in, this poor deluded soul has now invented an imaginery friend to keep his self esteem from disappearing into ridicule.
The article in the Daily Mail is absurd and based on slanted data, as ever. The reality is that qualifying criteria preclude the foreign rush from housing rights, which is why the private sector has done so nicely and why our fellow humans who's only crime is to speak another language are living on our streets and eating rats!
Seriously - ILAG has come back with such an increased rate of self delusion and hate he clearly is not well. Can I suggest that posters avoid responding to his outlandish claims in future in an attempt to avoid inflaming him to a complete mental breakdown. - ILAG, seek help urgently, you are clearly not well and it is sad to see such a rapid decline.
31/08/2010 11:10 am
If you are against immigration or the way immigration policy is conducted by all means fight for what you believe by posting on an (anti) immigration website.
Because once an immigrant is in our country LEGALLY he is not to be treated differently from anybody else in the same situation.
If the DM was a decent paper he would have put a question like this to his readership: "Should a homeless family of seven LEGALLY immigrated anbd accepted into this country given the same needs allocation priority as a homeless British family of seven?"
As a DM reader what would your answer be?
31/08/2010 12:55 pm
"Should a homeless family of seven LEGALLY immigrated anbd accepted into this country given the same needs allocation priority as a homeless British family of seven?"
The answer is yes.
The reality is very very few immigrant household are actually applying for social housing. they are however previlant in private rented and allowing buy to let to flourish.
Its hard enough for a native let alone an immigrant to wade through the homeless criteria, far easier to have a look in Gumtree and sort yourself out. HB is available and landlords want the tenants.
Hey Kass, I dont often agree with you and I must apologise for other other people who also disagree but dont seem to be able to be pleasant about it
31/08/2010 1:30 pm
Of course they shouldn't have the same rights as an indigenous resident.
That's the whole point of the policy and that's why it has the overwhelming support of the native British population who pay their taxes go to church and don't upset other people.
When I go to France, I speak French, celebrate all their culture and customs. I don't go there, speak English, arrive with a bunch of dependents in tow, demand benefits and apply to live in the houses of native Frogs.
31/08/2010 1:55 pm
So immigrants dont pay taxes dont go to church and upset other (ie white British) people?
I dont doubt it has the overwhelming support you claim, but the premises you decide to use are racist as well as errant.
Do you (Mr or Mrs Anonymous) have any figures to show that immigrants pay less taxes than white British people? Have any figures to show that a higher % of white British attend church than immigrants? That immigrants have a higher number of ASBOs or complaints made against them than White British?
To return to the question - the end is in sight? I think not. Local connection is part of allocation policies nationally and not just homeless legislation. The fact its in homeless legislation actually helps the indigent population have a priority over immigrants by local connection being applied - a simple yet bloody obvious point that those who rail against needs based approaches.
Changes to how local connection is prioritised in allocating properties is a real thorny issue. Allocation policies have to be written and interpreted and also have to accord with the law, whether that be 1996 Housing Act or lest we forget the Human Rights Act. To give actual priority to whte British people over non British is racist however you look at it and whether you agree with it as it discriminates against people on the grounds of race. Local councils will be in court every 5 minutes if they try and implement such a policy, and rightly so.
This is a non-runner
31/08/2010 1:56 pm
"the native British population who pay their taxes go to church and don't upset other people"
So that rules out most of the government, nearly all of the heads of industry, and a considerable portion of the workers.
Native - not me my grandparents were from all across Europe escaping persecution and death. And it is so with many other British people. Even Cliff Richard is not a native.
Tax payer - I am but that nice Mr Green who is going to tell us how to manage better isn't, along with most of the Tory funders.
Church goer - me again, but I fear I may be in a minority.
Don't upset others - I post of IH, need I say anymore!
31/08/2010 2:11 pm
"...When I go to France, I speak French, celebrate all their culture and customs. I don't go there, speak English, arrive with a bunch of dependents in tow, demand benefits and apply to live in the houses of native Frogs."
When you go to France you will find a bunch of French people who claim exactly like you. Their French counterparts also say that when they come to our fantastic and much loved and sceptred England they don't come here, to speak French, arrive with a bunch of dependents in tow, demand benefits and apply to live in the houses of native Anglos....
But you are talking about tourists, and this is not a tourism website.
Many immigrants are so keen for their children to do well in our country that they forbid them to speak nothing but English, worried they might otherwise be handicapped language-wise in their careers...
But yet again, this is not an immigration website to go in great details how complex is an immigrant situation.
31/08/2010 2:51 pm
Depends on the offence. Uk citizens abroad for some offences could be repatried just as well. Where is the difference?
31/08/2010 2:58 pm
The EHRC did some in-depth research on this last year (2009) in a report called "Social Housing Allocations and Immigrant Communities."
The research found:
Greater than 90% of social housing allocated is to UK born persons.
11% of foregin nationals live in social housing yet 17% of British people do.
It also states "New migrants to the UK over the last five years make up less than 2% of the total of those in social housing" As the last 5 years would include the period from 2004 then this includes the A8 nationals from Poland et al.
Interestingly there are more Germans in the UK than Bangladeshis, Jamaicans, Nigerians, Kenyans, and almost 3 times the number of Somalians (ILAG's favourite) Ghanians, and 5 times the number of Ugandans and Afghanis.
There are more Americans in the UK than any African country with the exception of South Africa.
So the less than 10 per cent of non UK born persons getting social housing will include Germans, Americans, South Africanss and of course not forgetting Irish, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders... and French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and a few other white peoples.