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

Carers often get paid between mimimim wage which is is £12.71 per hour for workers aged 21 and over.

The Agency I used a while, a known one Home Instead, paid around £13 and hour and £15 for qualified/experienced ones.

You could not get a place for that in many area nanna

Because they not often not paid for the travelling time either.

😡

Whitewavemark2

I believe that Farage has the same plan, but of course intends to carry it out within 3 months instead of 6.

Are you sure he doesn’t mean 3 “minutes”, after all he does use the “Trump book of terrific ideas”

A bit of of history.

The first large wave of council housing came after the First World War. The government's aim, inspired by the slogan "Homes Fit for Heroes," was to provide decent housing for working people, especially those living in overcrowded or unhealthy conditions.

Tenants were often:

Skilled and semi-skilled workers.
Families with steady employment.
People who could pay a modest rent.

Many of the very poorest families couldn't even afford these rents, despite the homes being subsidized.

After the Second World War

The Labour government elected in 1945 dramatically expanded council house building. Britain had:

Severe bomb damage.
A huge housing shortage.
Many outdated slum properties.

The vision was that council housing would be available to a broad cross-section of society. Occupants included:

Factory workers.
Miners.
Teachers.
Nurses.
Clerks.
Civil servants.
Ex-servicemen and their families.

Many people expected to spend most of their lives in a council house. There was little stigma attached; in fact, moving into a new council house with indoor plumbing, a bathroom, a garden, and modern conveniences was often seen as a major improvement in quality of life.

This changed in the 1970s with the most significant changes being made under the Thatcher government.

Near us there is an area of what were council houses, with good sized gardens now all sold and sought after. They are beautifully built, surrounded by large areasof grass and mature trees, some in quiet small cul de sacs (built before cars were around).

They should be for the people on DAR’s list😡

I totally agree with you Silvershadow. Why should people who have been born in this country and paid tax be on long waiting lists or worse still homeless whilst migrants are given priority.

Of course but commonsense doesn’t seem to enter into it. Why don’t British people take priority ? I really don’t understand that. What is wrong with the government ?

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.

I do agree, Silvershadow.

My daughter (with her 3 daughters) had terrible trouble trying to get out of a damp nasty house owned by a rogue landlord. She tried to get on the social housing list but was thwarted at every turn. Somebody working for a solicitor told her (tongue in cheek) that her only chance was to go to the docks and pretend to be an immigrant - she'd be housed immediately.

My sister and her husband (landlords) confirmed that immigrants were given priority over British people each and every time when it came to social housing.

Luckily for my daughter, her situation has been resolved. But yes, I do care that British families aren't prioritised over migrant families, taxpayers or no taxpayers.

Can anyone enlighten me as to why some posters carry on an argument that is proven incorrect and misleading?

It makes no sense.

Perhaps it's easier to find a scapegoat rather than read the facts! It's easier for the Conservatives to ape Reform and Restore than admit to their own failure in government. Council houses should never have been sold off cheaply (Thatcher's government) and more houses should have been built during the last 14 years of Conservative government. We have a housing crisis and you won't solve it by turfing one lot of families out of housing to replace it with another lot of families on the housing list. It is absolutely obvious and I totally agree with a previous poster who said it was "cruel". It's not only cruel, it's absolutely stupid and pointless. Badenoch's family used the system to give her British citizenship, she also was able to gain a British education by moving back to the UK and yet she wants to disadvantage people who have moved here, gained settled status, pay tax here and contribute to our society. She is beyond belief!

If she lived in the USA she would be in severe difficulties and presumably packed off to Nigeria?

Development for the private market has resulted in lots of big homes on tiny plots with lots of hard landscaping, & located outside the cities on greenfield sites with people commuting into work, while there were perfectly good brownfield sites within the cities.
Bad for flooding, expensive to maintain & expensive to heat relative to more modest houses, bad for the commute, no good for first-generation immigrant families & lower- paid workers as they can't afford them.
We don't always make the wisest choices when market forces are the only plan.

nanna8

Of course but commonsense doesn’t seem to enter into it. Why don’t British people take priority ? I really don’t understand that. What is wrong with the government ?

This is becoming a circular arguement with you nanna8.

British people aren't excluded from priority; priority is based on housing need among people who are legally eligible for social housing. Simply arriving in the UK doesn't entitle someone to council housing.

I know that's not what you want to hear but it is still a fact.

Whitewavemark2

Can anyone enlighten me as to why some posters carry on an argument that is proven incorrect and misleading?

It makes no sense.

It's gossip really. Somebody who knew somebody told me xyz so I can now ignore any truths that don't suit me.

What about all the Afghans air lifted over with very large families, some up to 20, who were housed. They didn’t wait years and years for housing.

The list given by DaisyAnne is how it should be allocated and how it was allocated but is no longer.

Where do you get this information from Silvershadow, I query your sources? I just checked on AI, and this was the response:
Data regarding the UK's Afghan resettlement schemes shows an average ratio of roughly four family members for every main applicant. Operational breakdowns indicate clusters averaging about four to five people total per application group (e.g., 900 main applicants arriving with 3,600 family dependents).

There was a huge article in most mainstream newspapers Casdon. That’s where I got it from. And whether there’s four or twenty they’re being housed at taxpayers expense in homes which should be for British families.

A single Afghan migrant was allowed to bring 22 relatives to Britain under a secretive resettlement scheme that has now sparked outrage over security, cost, and government transparency.

The unprecedented case emerged this week after the High Court lifted a super-injunction that had concealed the fallout from a 2022 Ministry of Defence data breach—described as the most damaging in British history. The leak, caused by a Royal Marine’s email error, exposed thousands of Afghans linked to UK forces to potential Taliban retaliation.

The government responded by launching a classified evacuation programme, the Afghanistan Response Route. But court rulings significantly expanded the definition of “family member,” allowing claimants to bring in large extended families—regardless of blood or legal ties.

Previously, just 10% of those now entering would have qualified under existing rules. Now, officials estimate over 12,000 additional relatives may be eligible due to the breach. In one case, ministers reportedly considered knocking two military homes into one to accommodate a single family unit.

The scheme’s estimated cost has ballooned to £6 billion, fuelling backlash from across the political spectrum. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said the public had been “betrayed,” warning the influx includes individuals with criminal pasts who had previously been denied asylum.

While Defence Secretary John Healey insists that all arrivals were “carefully” vetted, critics say genuine allies were left behind while Britain’s asylum system was quietly rewritten under cover of secrecy.

under a secretive resettlement scheme that has now sparked outrage over security, cost, and government transparency.

The unprecedented case emerged this week after the High Court lifted a super-injunction that had concealed the fallout from a 2022 Ministry of Defence data breach—described as the most damaging in British history. The leak, caused by a Royal Marine’s email error, exposed thousands of Afghans linked to UK forces to potential Taliban retaliation.

The government responded by launching a classified evacuation programme, the Afghanistan Response Route. But court rulings significantly expanded the definition of “family member,” allowing claimants to bring in large extended families—regardless of blood or legal ties.

Previously, just 10% of those now entering would have qualified under existing rules. Now, officials estimate over 12,000 additional relatives may be eligible due to the breach. In one case, ministers reportedly considered knocking two military homes into one to accommodate a single family unit.

The scheme’s estimated cost has ballooned to £6 billion, fuelling backlash from across the political spectrum. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said the public had been “betrayed,” warning the influx includes individuals with criminal pasts who had previously been denied asylum.

While Defence Secretary John Healey insists that all arrivals were “carefully” vetted, critics say genuine allies were left behind while Britain’s asylum system was quietly rewritten under cover of secrecy.

Whether it was in mainstream newspapers other than as an exception report about very few families I would doubt very much, because it isn’t borne out by the facts.
I disagree that people are not a high priority for accommodation, when they would be killed for helping British military personnel in Afghanistan in the war effort, if they had not been airlifted to safety here.

There we are Casdon.

So it was one family of 22 members then. The data breach was a UK error, are you saying that you think we should brush that under the carpet, or should we face up to the consequences of our error?

silvershadow

OK.

Now I put the question back to you.

Our troops spent years in Afghanistan and often survived only because of the bravery of Afghans who were supporting them.

It was known that if the Taliban got hold of these Afghans they would be tortured and put to death along with their families.

What would your solution have been?

We aren’t talking about data breaches are we. We are talking about council or social housing being allocated to migrants before British families. Reading this article tells us there’s many of them, some of whom could be criminals but theyre just not too sure about that. Nevertheless they’ve all been housed, the taxpayers are paying, so it’s all ok then.

You are deflecting!

It was an appalling error putting thousands in great danger. Who can know how many went on the be "disappeared".

We have to take the consequences of our failings at the time
Which includes this daily, which of course is inappropriate...

But to pick out just one is not the point and go

"oh they are all/nearly all, like this". Which is what is being done here.

Whitewavemark2

silvershadow

OK.

Now I put the question back to you.

Our troops spent years in Afghanistan and often survived only because of the bravery of Afghans who were supporting them.

It was known that if the Taliban got hold of these Afghans they would be tortured and put to death along with their families.

What would your solution have been?

My solution would have been to airlift them if it was totally necessary and the jury is out on that, put them in barracks for three months and if they wanted more to go out and earn it like the rest of us do. And to be 100% certain there are no Taliban or criminals amongst them. Limit it to immediate family and no more than four. Once their country recovers they go back.

What’s your solution?

Silvershadow

We aren’t talking about data breaches are we. We are talking about council or social housing being allocated to migrants before British families. Reading this article tells us there’s many of them, some of whom could be criminals but theyre just not too sure about that. Nevertheless they’ve all been housed, the taxpayers are paying, so it’s all ok then.

You are deflecting!

Yes, of course we are. We have a responsibility for people our data breach put in danger. I’m not deflecting at all. I do wonder if you watched that Sky News analysis I put up yesterday though, which puts this into perspective as a tiny part of an overall housing shortage issue. Hyper focus on one group of people you don’t think should be accommodated is pointless in the bigger scheme of things.