Immigrants 'do not get unfair access to social housing'

[BalhamCloud]

Suspected illegals.
After all, given their underground status, it's quite hard to know whether we're talking about three-quarters of a million in actuality, or a putative three-quarters of a million, as projected by some policy wonk with an eye for a headline. Best stick to facts, eh?

Perhaps we should make it fair and declare everyone illegal?

 

[BalhamCloud]

I bet I can guess your voting record, sonny jim

I forgot. Guesswork is the privilage of communists.

 

[durruti02]

1)no, it was Livingstone, and it was probably the most major policy that changed London. Instead of all the derries and hard to lets simply decaying, whether squatted or not, they were handed over to enthusiastic people who wanted to make homes out of them. For a couple of years almost every street in London had a skip or two as that enthusiasm translated into regeneration, and so, as inner London began to be seen as a good place to live, gradually the exodus reversed. Of course, that popularity later turned to gentrification, but that was a failure of later policies, not of the original giveaway.


2)of course, that's indisputable,

3)they still would, my parents want/need a sheltered bungalow and their HA ought to have the 3 bed back for a family that needs it and can cope with the stairs and garden, but the mechanisms are way too cumbersome, so they've been getting increasingly frustrated over a couple of decades.

4) I wonder whether he'd have sold up and bought closer to his job if he'd had that option?

5) I reckon people like individual control, and understand the costs & benefits of bigger mortgages, shorter commute, bigger or smaller rooms or gardens... there's a personal equation about money -v- quality of life which no bureaucracy has ever really managed to address. I think that's the fundamental reason ownership is so popular, the financial gain aspect isn't the major motivator except for the sensationally greedy few.

6) I don't think I was, but it's discussed and focused upon far, far more than is warranted, and too often the discussions are one dimensional, which gives it an importance way beyond what it actually means.

1) certain cutler did it .. maybe both did

2) i appreciate you say that but the overall reaction on here and elsewhere in the left is that housing policy is 'fair' and by implication not part of the neo liberal makeover thaat every other part of UK law had

3) yep

4) well i wouldn't have thought he couldn't afford to buy on his wages even if he had had RTB .. there are also some personal issues that make sense for him and family to be out there ..

5) thinking of starting thread on this .. worthy of more discussion

6) ok fair play .. yes it is talked about far too often as bullshite with a sub racist agenda .. what i meant is discussed openly and properly and looking at facts like we try to do on here .. so yes the right talk bullshit about it all the time .. the liberal left imho hide from it

 

[durruti02]

And that's across an entire borough. According to a mate at Westminster, Southwark have been ringing round other boroughs to see if they've got any spare short-term lets.

what bullshit ( not u vp) .. there will be hundreds if not thousands of empties, probably brand new, in southwark .. wouldn't it be amazing to see the goons the council send around to evict squats turn up one day at one of these private schemes and occupy it and move in homeless families??!.. and tbh that is what the likes of US should be doing

 

[durruti02]

tbf, I haven't actually said that, we were debating the term "mass" not whether or not there was mass immigration, mass emmigration or mass masses

so based on the ONS figures qouted in the EHRC report that shows an increase of at least 1 million in a short period of time follwoing several decades of equilibrium .. do you regard that as 'mass'?

 

[marty21]

so based on the ONS figures qouted in the EHRC report that shows an increase of at least 1 million in a short period of time follwoing several decades of equilibrium .. do you regard that as 'mass'?

we don't know for sure what the illegal immigration numbers are, and we don't know many of the entrants are immigrants or returnees, or how many of the emigrants are ex-immigrants, or citizens leaving

yes there are a lot of people entering the country

 

[durruti02]

we don't know for sure what the illegal immigration numbers are, and we don't know many of the entrants are immigrants or returnees, or how many of the emigrants are ex-immigrants, or citizens leaving

yes there are a lot of people entering the country

um you see imho it is this sort of thing, what you are saying here, mate that is causing us real problems in the wider community

.. all the stats say that we have had or are in a period of high immigration .. whether mass or not is actually irrelevent .. the stats that say 10% of social housing are occupied by people not born in the UK, the ONS stats in that report, the reports of local authorities who can't cope with both an increase in numbers AND that the increase are non english speaking (http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1180107)

or just looking at the shops where we all live .. it is really obvious that there has been a big change somewhere .. so regardless of whether it is good or bad ( proabably both in differrent ways) your denial of theses facts is just not the right way to start

 

[marty21]

um you see imho it is this sort of thing, what you are saying here, mate that is causing us real problems in the wider community

.. all the stats say that we have had or are in a period of high immigration .. whether mass or not is actually irrelevent .. the stats that say 10% of social housing are occupied by people not born in the UK, the ONS stats in that report, the reports of local authorities who can't cope with both an increase in numbers AND that the increase are non english speaking (http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1180107)

or just looking at the shops where we all live .. it is really obvious that there has been a big change somewhere .. so regardless of whether it is good or bad ( proabably both in differrent ways) your denial of theses facts is just not the right way to start

i'm not denying anything, you've made a point of denying loads of stuff on this thread

 

[durruti02]

i'm not denying anything, you've made a point of denying loads of stuff on this thread

ok .. it is teh way you wrote that .. so you accept we have had mass or very high immigration in the last decade? i just think people would listen to the lefgt a lot more if they were a bit blunter .. yes we have had mass immigration .. NOW lets talk about whether that is good or bad"

btw what have i denied

 

[newbie]

the changing class face of central london didn't change from the 1980s, but a trend which had existed since at least the early 1970s was accelerated - gentrification. one sociologist - whose name i can't immediately recall - wrote in about 1973 that a massive gentrification of central london could see the working class forced out of central london (ie the inner london boroughs) and replaced by the middle class. this is now coming to pass, and was something which the slum clearances of the 1960s and the sale of council flats has led towards.

if you look at what's happened to stoke newington, to the angel, to camden town, london fields, and to barnsbury in the last 30/35 years you'll see formerly working class areas affected by what (in the case of barnsbury) has been described as supergentrification.

it's against the background of this pre-existing trend that the great competition for social housing in all forms in london has to be seen. this process was well under way before the events to which you refer, and it is something which proceeds apace .

Dunno about all those places north of the river but I'd be bemused if an early 70s sociologist described Brixton gentrifying (or Clapham, come to that). At the time there was little or no influx of middle class incomers, indeed there were queues at the housing advice centre of people desperate to get a transfer out of the borough and out of London, leaving behind the crumbling coldwater, outside bog terraces and the mansion blocks with green mould on the walls. I'd certainly dispute that the residents were 'forced out', by and large they clamoured to get out.

It was because there were so many empty, rotting and unwanted ex-homes that squatters came into the area, and while many of them were middle class, many were not, but they were mostly young, educated and non-local.

Depopulation of the longterm residents continued into the 80s as the dole queues lengthened. The influx of first squatters then shortlife licensees and finally those who got the GLC hard-to-let giveaways kickstarted regeneration but the area didn't really start gentrifying until much later, when the better off started buying their way in because it was a desirable place to be. Prior to that most ended up there because there was a surplus of available housing that no-one else really wanted.

 

[newbie]

1) certain cutler did it .. maybe both did

2) i appreciate you say that but the overall reaction on here and elsewhere in the left is that housing policy is 'fair' and by implication not part of the neo liberal makeover thaat every other part of UK law had

3) yep

4) well i wouldn't have thought he couldn't afford to buy on his wages even if he had had RTB .. there are also some personal issues that make sense for him and family to be out there ..

5) thinking of starting thread on this .. worthy of more discussion

6) ok fair play .. yes it is talked about far too often as bullshite with a sub racist agenda .. what i meant is discussed openly and properly and looking at facts like we try to do on here .. so yes the right talk bullshit about it all the time .. the liberal left imho hide from it

2 well I don't agree with your views on sons & daughters etc because I think it's 'fair' that a social housing allocations policy is based on need (with local connection as one but only one component of need). But for myself, and I suspect though can't be sure, for a lot of the rest of the left, to describe the overall state of modern housing policy as 'fair' would be ridiculous. There are levels of unfairness piled one on the next leaving, at the very bottom, the desperate people without home or hope of enough points to get one.

Even those with real need are hardly treated fairly, eg when homeless families are parked in a flat sold off under rtb and now rented back, at exorbitant cost, by the council because that's the only way they can fulfill their legal obligations The family doesn't get a full social tenancy, yet now has a home and so doesn't have enough points for hope of a transfer. The landlord creams hundreds of pounds per week more than the tenant pays the council.

It's absurd to think that any part of the left could see that as either fair or desirable.

 

[BalhamCloud]

Why not? Please have the courtesy to explain yourself.

After you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Perhaps we should make it fair and declare everyone illegal?

Fine by me. All immigrants and all descendants of immigrants.

The Welsh will love that, they'll get the whole of Britain back for themselves, being the only genetic descendants of the native Britons.

 

[ViolentPanda]

what bullshit ( not u vp) .. there will be hundreds if not thousands of empties, probably brand new, in southwark .. wouldn't it be amazing to see the goons the council send around to evict squats turn up one day at one of these private schemes and occupy it and move in homeless families??!.. and tbh that is what the likes of US should be doing

Of course it's bollocks that there are thousands of new-build empty properties that they could be "decanted" into, and yet they're not.
Then again, you do realise that a great deal of that privately-developed new-build doesn't actually reach the standards required for social housing, don't you? The National Housing Federation decided not to proceed with okaying the purchase of tens of thousands of such units. RenterGirl's column in "Society Guardian" last week had an interesting little rant about that very thing (her blog is good for a laugh too)!

 

[ViolentPanda]

After you.

I already have.

 

[durruti02]

Of course it's bollocks that there are thousands of new-build empty properties that they could be "decanted" into, and yet they're not.
Then again, you do realise that a great deal of that privately-developed new-build doesn't actually reach the standards required for social housing, don't you? The National Housing Federation decided not to proceed with okaying the purchase of tens of thousands of such units. RenterGirl's column in "Society Guardian" last week had an interesting little rant about that very thing (her blog is good for a laugh too)!

yes i saw that a few weeks back .. only 10% of 100k empty new build were up to standard, or was it that RSLs would only take 10% as they said the rest were substandard??

tis fucking outrageous .. the old 'soft touch' from New Lab again

 

[ViolentPanda]

yes i saw that a few weeks back .. only 10% of 100k empty new build were up to standard, or was it that RSLs would only take 10% as they said the rest were substandard??

Only 10% of the housing looked at under the remit of the NHF's purchasing plan was up to the standards they use. Lots of really crappy design issues like kharzis opening onto the kitchen (which has been "banned" in public housing since the 1950s).

tis fucking outrageous .. the old 'soft touch' from New Lab again

Let business "self-regulate" and shit is all you should expect, frankly.