The lack of news over the summer months can mean stories get blown out of all proportion.
Take the Chilean miners for example. It’s an interesting story. It’s good they are alive. But do we really need daily updates on their health and well being? It’ll be a news in brief by the time they finally get out.
Similarly the ‘revelation’ that councils will be able to set social housing allocation policies seems to be getting more attention than it possibly deserves.
The story was on the front page of the Sunday Times, and leaped on by the likes of the Express, Telegraph and, of course, Daily Mail.
But however many column inches it gets, you can’t really get away from the fact that this isn’t new. John Healey announced that councils would be given similar freedoms in December, when he was still housing minister.
And the idea that born and bred Brits will be leapfrogging immigrants to get social homes is just as unlikely as the idea that immigrants are currently leapfrogging Brits.
The simple fact is there are not enough available social homes to go round, and the majority of those that are available will continue to go to those in priority need – regardless of their ethnic background.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (3)
Melvin Bone | 31/08/2010 4:55 pm
Ding, dong, right on.
It is the silly season (even on IH judging by some of the articles) a Minister announcing something that is a re-spun version of something a previous minister announced is nothing new.
In addition the Civil Servants will have loads of policies in the pipeline that they hoped to foist on the last bunch that they will subtly change and foist on this lot...
As for the Daily Mail, well at least it always highlights a topic for debate even if it point is usually misguided and misinformed.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 31/08/2010 5:40 pm
"The simple fact is there are not enough available social homes to go round, and the majority of those that are available will continue to go to those in priority need – regardless of their ethnic background."
This is the money paragraph. Priority need or Section 193 allocation almost always equates to homelessness and children. Fertility is the key here and it is a fact that immigrant populations are more productive than indigenous ones.
Take a look at Salford University's study of allocations by ethnic category.
Far from allocation taking place regardless of ethnic background it is taking place because of ethnic background.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 31/08/2010 5:48 pm
I think you are confusing immigrant with ethnic.
A British subject may have a whole range of ethnic backgrounds. Due to prejudice some people of certain ethnic backgrounds remain disadvantaged and thus more in need than others. I believe that you will find this is behind the Salford findings.
Immigrant populations are more fertile and have more children - an interesting theory, and not without factual basis if one considers cultural and industrial-social development, but such is not the product of race but rather tradition. Perhaps you might explain to the less knowledgeable just how an immigrant is more fertile than a UK citizen - is it something we ate?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment