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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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

It makes no sense.

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.

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 ?

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.

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😡

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.

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”

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.

😡

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!

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

You really would evict tax paying nurses and carers?

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.

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.