Coming a close second to the daft idea of Britishness - is the idea to turf all non- British people out of all social housing.

Silvershadow only 32% of London social housing is occupied by non-British citizens.

How your sources stretched 32% to over hald, I don't know.

half

news.sky.com/video/would-tory-ban-on-foreign-nationals-taking-social-housing-fix-the-shortage-13570776
I suggest you watch this analysis Silvershadow, in a couple of minutes it covers the salient points, and dispels the myths.

valdali

Silvershadow only 32% of London social housing is occupied by non-British citizens.

How your sources stretched 32% to over hald, I don't know.

Still a huge number!

And you are happy with 32% non-British occupancy, I'm certainly not. It's not being racist (before someone brings out that card) I just believe that our own citizens should take priority

sundowngirl

valdali

Silvershadow only 32% of London social housing is occupied by non-British citizens.

How your sources stretched 32% to over hald, I don't know.

Still a huge number!

And you are happy with 32% non-British occupancy, I'm certainly not. It's not being racist (before someone brings out that card) I just believe that our own citizens should take priority

Why do you think that if it's not racist? And I am not playing cards - just discussing a point.

There is a lot of misinformation regarding people who have immigrated to the U.K., and perhaps some facts would not go amiss.

Regarding asylum seekers - both legal and illegal - none are entitled to social housing.

Regarding people who have immigrated to the U.K., who may or may not hold a British passport.

“ most immigrants are not entitled to social housing in the UK. Eligibility is strictly limited. Migrants on temporary work or study visas have "no recourse to public funds" (NRPF), meaning they cannot access council housing. Asylum seekers are also legally barred from mainstream social housing”

Who May Qualify

Foreign nationals can only apply if they have settled status, refugee status, or specific humanitarian protections.

Settled Status / Indefinite Leave:

People with full settled status or no restrictions on public funds.

Refugees and Specific Schemes:

Recognized refugees and those under specific government humanitarian routes (such as from Ukraine or Afghanistan).

Local Rules:

Even if legally eligible based on immigration status, applicants must still meet local council criteria, such as local connection rules and demonstrable housing need.

The majority of immigrants who were born in a foreign country, and live in social housing now hold a British passport.

The 50% number is I am afraid misleading - 48% of lead tenants living in social housing were born in a foreign country. Of them 64% hold a British passport.

Thanks for the detail WWM2.

Sundowngirl your question: 'And you are happy with 32% non-British occupancy, I'm certainly not. It's not being racist (before someone brings out that card) I just believe that our own citizens should take priority"

In light of WWM2's information sundowngirl what do you mean by "our own citizens" and what are your reasons for our own citizens taking priority? What are your reasons for other citizens being deprioritised or made not eligible for social housing?

Of course British citizens should take priority. Can’t believe they don’t. Is that really true ? Madness

nanna8

Of course British citizens should take priority. Can’t believe they don’t. Is that really true ? Madness

I think that you are misunderstanding.

British citizens and people of settled status are prioritised.

Have a look at my post above.

Silvershadow

Does nobody care that British families can’t get social housing, subsidised by the taxpayer, because it goes to migrant families? Why should somebody get it who has just arrived in the country compared to those born here? Somebody explain. Over 50% of social housing in London is occupied by migrants. 50% that cannot be allocated to young British families.

The comments on this thread are the usual. But in the real world there is anger about this all across the country.

Remember it’s all subsidised by taxpayers. I don’t want to subsidise them myself.

The housing shortage is real, but your conclusion doesn't follow from the statistic. Most people counted as "migrants" in London social housing aren't people who "just arrived", many have lived here for years or are now British citizens.

The "over 50%" figure usually refers to the foreign-born share of households in London's social housing, not "new arrivals." Those are very different claims, and conflating them can give a misleading impression. Recent migrants often aren't even eligible for social housing.

I understand people's frustration but the core problem is that the UK hasn't built enough affordable and social homes for decades, leaving everyone competing for too few properties. Any argument needs to be based on facts and these facts are the fault of a decade of goverments mainly posturing rather solving problems. Those parties are now simply appealing to peoples prejuduces not offering real solutions.

The core problem is that millions of former council properties have been sold off since 1980. Now largely managed by housing associations, they are still being sold (and all too often to people laundering money).

Over 40% of the houses sold since 1980 are now owned by private landlords who charge three of four times social rent. In some parts of the country over 70% of former social housing is now in the hands of private landlords.

As I understand it, under this new Tory policy, anyone who does not have EU settled status, irrespective of how long they have legally lived, worked and paid taxes in the UK could be evicted. That will include workers from non-EU countries who have come to the UK at the request of the UK government to work in our public services.

It’s a shocking, racist policy straight out of the Reform playbook. No wonder the Tory website is now decorated with a lot of turquoise.

www.conservatives.com/our-plan-for-britain

What government needs is a national plan to bringing back into use the one million homes, in England alone, that are sitting long term empty.

www.actiononemptyhomes.org/

nanna8

Of course British citizens should take priority. Can’t believe they don’t. Is that really true ? Madness

nanna8 - you have no idea. Madness doesn't even scratch the surface.

Some people think that 32% of London social housing being occupied by non-British citizens is acceptable. That is one third of our London social housing! So how long before it becomes two thirds, and will people start to feel a little concerned at that point, or will it have to reach 75%? Don't forget, if you complain at any one of these figures you are called racist.

Why do people not think through what the reasons might be? 32% of NHS staff in London are from overseas. The NHS has between 250 270,000 staff in London. It still has the highest vacancy rate in the UK. Key workers are prioritised for social housing, and London operates a number of specific schemes to accommodate key workers, who could otherwise not afford to live and work there.

Maremia

Harping back to another Thread, if the criteria for Britishness was changed, would Badenoch no longer be British? Something to do with birth tourism?
Would Prince Charles have to give up his palaces, as his father was born in Greece?

I’ve never understood why many of the politicians that are anti immigration are second generation immigrants .

AI Overview:

Approximately 81.6% of lead tenants in new social housing lettings in London were UK nationals for the financial year 2024/25.

New Lettings 2024/25 Data collected via the Continuous Recording of Lettings in Social Housing (CORE) shows that 81.6% of lead tenants in newly let London social housing were UK nationals.

Total Stock / Census Snapshot According to the 2021 Census and Regulator of Social Housing data, 47.6% of household reference persons (lead tenants) living in existing London social homes were born outside the UK. Of that foreign-born group 68% are UK nationals holding a UK passport, meaning that a significant portion of foreign-born social housing heads of household have naturalised or hold British citizenship.

It appears that historically the numbers were higher for non UK nationals to obtain social care housing in London compared to more recent 2024/25 data that shows 81.6% of newly allocated social housing were to UK nationals.

As Casdon suggested that may be as a result of people coming from abroad since the 50s and 60s to help staff the NHS and London Transport etc and have been tenants for many years.

The data clearly shows that proportion of new social housing lettings in London are allocated to British citizens is 81.6%.

Chestnut

nanna8

Of course British citizens should take priority. Can’t believe they don’t. Is that really true ? Madness

nanna8 - you have no idea. Madness doesn't even scratch the surface.

Some people think that 32% of London social housing being occupied by non-British citizens is acceptable. That is one third of our London social housing! So how long before it becomes two thirds, and will people start to feel a little concerned at that point, or will it have to reach 75%? Don't forget, if you complain at any one of these figures you are called racist.

The statistic has already been explained, but even if you support prioritising "British citizens", it's worth asking what Reform's proposal would actually change.

Most people ineligible under immigration rules already can't access social housing. So who would be excluded under the new policy - people with indefinite leave to remain, refugees the UK has accepted, or mixed-nationality families? And how much would that reduce waiting lists compared with tackling the housing shortage itself? Those are the questions that determine whether the proposal would make a significant difference.

No one supporting this suggestion has shown this. All we hear is anger based on a misinterpretation of statistics. That is not persuasive.

I think the whole idea is barmy. If there were no waiting lists, fair enough. Of course genuine oppressed refugees should be housed but not others.

You really would evict tax paying nurses and carers?

If they are nurses and carers they have jobs and can afford their own place. I thought community housing was for those with little or no income or a significant disability?

Few nurses and carers can “ afford their own place” in London. The bottom line is there aren’t enough homes at affordable rents all thanks to M Thatcher selling off council homes and forbidding councils building new ones. It doesn’t bother me where people were born if they are working and contributing, particularly in our public services. I’d rather have them than some of the lowlife who were born here and think they can sit on their backsides and not bother to get a job.

nanna8

If they are nurses and carers they have jobs and can afford their own place. I thought community housing was for those with little or no income or a significant disability?

If they are nurses and carers they have jobs and can afford their own place.

The fact is that rents in the private sector are so high - they often can't afford their own place.

Carers are poorly paid - everyone knows that.

People with "little or no income" or with a disability, will be eligible for state support.

Carers are generally I believe just above the cut-off point - so will get nothing. They are in the poverty-trap.

How many times does it need saying - the NHS, rightly or wrongly, relies on immigrant labour...

As far as I,m aware income was never on the criteria for a council house.
Here living in council houses was never seen as a second class option indeed the majority lived in rented accommodation.
The” get on the property ladder” is quite a new concept to my generation .We were allocated a brand new 2 bed and box room semi detached house with garden back and front and a garage across the street ..3 WEEKS after we got married in 1975
The only criteria was did we need somewhere to stay.
Those houses 51 years later still have a lot of the original tenants living happily in them ,a council house is and was a contract for life…many don’t want a large debt and are happy to rent.
Our council is still building homes ,the newest have solar panels and chargers for electric cars ,the rent is on a par with some private rents locally.
There’s no shame in living in a council house with a secure tenancy the problem arose with the sale of council houses and that stopped a few years back in Scotland …it’s common sense not to sell off housing stock surely.

So, here we are, due to the complete failure of politicians to ensure there is suitable housing for the people who live and work in our country we are going to evict people from their homes which they obtained legally in the current system,

Seems completely fair and oh so very British.

Reform turn my stomach but the Restore lot would fit right in with 1930s Germany.

And here we have Badenoch pushing these cruel policies. Ok, if you want to change the rules for future claimants but evicting people already in the system , this is peoples homes she is talking about, families, kids. CRUEL.

nanna8

I think the whole idea is barmy. If there were no waiting lists, fair enough. Of course genuine oppressed refugees should be housed but not others.

Who are your "others" nanna8. You need to be specific otherwise we get back to the thinking that led to Brexit which kept on about the amount of money we paid to to EU. That arguement was the equivalent to saying you are going to give up your job to save money on the petrol used getting to it!