Forgive me if this has already been dealt with elsewhere, but how does this: “Only 11 per cent of immigrants who’ve arrived in the UK in the last five years are living in social housing, compared with 17 per cent of UK born people” amount to: “there is no evidence of a bias towards immigrants in the allocation of social housing”.

That data is quite consistent with, say, immigrants being put straight to the top of social housing queues. Perhaps only 11 per cent of immigrants who arrived in the UK in the last five years applied to live in social housing, and all of them got housed straight away, and perhaps thousands of UK born people applied for social housing, but got turned away, resulting in only 17 per cent of UK born people living in social housing at the present time.

Unless we know what’s happening with the number of available places in social housing, and how many applications there were from each group, we don’t know anything about bias toward any group – the sort of data cited above tells us nothing.

These are local homes for local people, we’ll have no trouble here!

Sorry, somebody had to.

If local people want local homes, they should bloody well make sure their kids don’t skip school, go to university themselves, get jobs rather than scrounge off the state, and then they’ll be wealthy enough to actually buy homes than get them from the state.

I do wish white working class people would stop moaning that the government (allegedly) helps people who’ve just come here and have nothing. They’ve been living here for decades in a country with free education til 18, subsidised university education, a fairly secure society – let’s face it, the local moaners are just lazy and want the government to put them up in homes so they can sit on their arse all day watching X Factor and Britain’s Got Talent.

Denim Justice puts it brilliantly. I’ve just one quibble – although they constantly describe themselves as “white working class,” the ‘they come here taking our jobs’ crowd are nothing of the sort. The white working class have been getting on with it..

Isn’t it time Gordon was prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred?

Glad to to see the Govt’s dog-whistle crap exposed as tommy-rot.. With finite resources, the first consideration has to be giving to those in the most need. There aren’t hordes of the dreaded (by the myth-believers) immigrants clamouring for accommodation, as the report proves. If someone’s needs are more pressing (i.e. they’re not just preferences or what they want, but what they need, a distinction lost on the consumeroist mindset held by this Govt), then they get priority, regardless of origin, etc. There’s too much noise been made by those who feel that they’ve been denied what they want, by services going to those who need. Tough: need should always trump want.
Anyhow, what constitutes local? If Joe Bloggs, gets on his bike for work as no doubt the Govt would suggest, and relocates from Berwick to Truro, then gets laid off soon after, is he local?

The question which is not answered is whether there are British people waiting for social housing which is being used by immigrants. If social housing was given first to British citizens who have been brought up in a local borough /district, next to British citizens who wanted to move to the borough and then to immigrants; then there would be far fewer complaints. After all charity starts at home and a queueing system would be considered by most people as fair. After all Lloyd George said ” Homes fit for heroes”.

3. Denim Justice 5 and . Alisdair Cameron . Your comments are one of many reasons why many the unskilled working class do not bother to vote and many of the the skilled working class vote against Labour. Your contempt for the working class could have been made by aristocrats of the pre-revolutionary France.

I have some questions about the IPPR report – such as whether the figures were weighted to reflect long standing social housing residents (those who have been housed since the 70s for example) who were housed under very different rules and systems to those used now.

I also pondered whether emergency temporary housing was included in the figures. And have been unable to confirm whether it was or wasn’t in some instances.

however – all of that seems a little irrelevant a few days later given the ludicrous racism that has surrounded the discussion.

All local Brits are not White!

Labour played the immigration angle somewhat with this. But they did not play the race card the way so many others debating this have done. This is nothing to do with “white working class” people. Indeed the vast majority of white working class people live in private housing nowadays.

Meanwhile – and this is the bit that annoys me – Black people in social housing are not immigrants just because they are black. Many were born in this country and consider this their home.

In their 2005 general election manifesto the BNP took to talking about “descendents of immigrants” – meaning people of ethnic minorities. And apparently they have keyed into a mentality even among the so-called enlighted that assumes for simplicity that blacks and asians don’t count as local.

Charlie, there may be (just may) be a case for prioritisng a ‘local’/British family ahead of others if they are in equal need. Where this whole debate gets plain nasty is with those who confuse need and want, as I said. It’s not contempt in any way: part of the cause is this bloody Govt and the preceding Tories giving folk the impression that the State can meet their wants, in a consumerist fashion. It can’t, and let’s be honest very, very few folk can ever get what they want. That is where far too many complaints arise, and they can never be satisfied. The role of the State should be in alleviating need.

Surely now is the worst time to announce ‘local homes for local people’? If I need to move out of my (high-unemployment) area to get a job, but am not allowed to get a house because I’m not local its going to make it a lot harder to find employment.

The British state should deal with the needs of British and especially local people, first. Friends from Italy and Austria are amazed at the generosity of the provision of housing/housing support to immigrants in Britain. The wants of British people should come ahead of the wants of immigrants.

@ Charlie. Perhaps, perhaps
But, you haven’t acknowledged my point, and the nub of this matter: need vs want (a.k.a. preference). I’d maintain that need should always trump wants., so that a non-local (definition, please) with need should come ahead of a local’s preference. If they are of equal standing, i.e. both in need,, only then might you have a case for saying charity begins at home. Nonetheless, charity (which this isn’t) and assistance should be directed at the most pressing needs, not be there to realise wish-lists.

Local -someone who has lived in a borough for more than 10 years. Non -local someone who has not lived in the borough for more than 10 years.

When allocating sources paid for by the British people, British people should come first provided they meet the criteria for social housing. When the there are spare properties after the British people have been housed, then they can be allocated to immigrants.

Alastair @ 8 – “part of the cause is this bloody Govt and the preceding Tories giving folk the impression that the State can meet their wants, in a consumerist fashion”

I don’t think that’s right and I’m quite surprised to hear you making that kind of argument.

The background is that there used to be much more council housing, so that it was a viable alternative to renting privately or owning for most working class people. That’s what a lot of people remember, and what they want.

The Thatcherites and Blairites opposed this and thought social housing should be a kind of special needs service, open only to people who really can’t get a mortgage or rent privately. With the consequences that we now know.

As a strong supporter of needs-based allocation of social housing, I’d just observe that every time someone on our side says that working class people should stop whinging about allocations, we make it more likely that allocations policies will be changed to disadvantage needy people, and we alienate the people who should be our biggest supporters on this issue.

The facts of the matter are that people are quite right to say that it is unfair that local people who want council housing have to wait for years and years, that changing the way council houses are allocated won’t do anything to help because the problem is that there aren’t enough of them, and that the only solution is to build lots more.

Perhaps I should clarify on that point, Don. You are correct in that the ultimate root cause is the sheer dearth of council/social housing. I was referring to a much wider, broader culture engendered by successive governments that has atomised society, removing people’s sense of social morality, reducing everyone to the consumerist role of being utterly selfish, oblivious to thers’ needs and out to get as much as possible for themselves in a stupidly short-sighted manner. I’m alluding too, to those folk in serviceable housing (not decrepit) who I encounter daily who want another bedroom, a ‘better’ area etc,nicer view not because they’re currently in hardship, but because they think the system should provide for them and them only. It’s short-sighted and self-defeating as it brings the system to its knees, meaning that those vocal complainers with little to justifiably complain about (note, this is referring to those seeking to have their wants/preferences met, not their needs) will have nowhere to turn should they, or relatives, be in a situation of real need.

Too many of the posts here typify exactly what is wrong with politics in general in this Country. They display the type of naivety that takes my breath away.

Not everyone can go to University even if was remotely possible. Nor is it particularly desirable that everyone did go to university either. Degrees are supposed to be a mark of excellence and separate people, loosely, according to their academic ability/achievements. We cannot, by definition, come equal first in the strive for elite achievement.

What do suppose would happen if everyone went to university? Everyone would work in the city? 35 million hedge fund managers/management consultants/copywriters etc? Come on people, lets look at reality before posting up pompous rubbish.

Our Country is going to have a wide spectrum of abilities/skills/income levels, irrespective of what the shallow minded among us think. No amount of patronisation bullshit is going to change that.

Do you really think that the shelf stackers/cleaners etc need their predicament explained in economic terms, so that they can grasp the need for them to live in poor housing? If only the oiks would learn advanced forelock tugging techniques and suddenly the BNP’s message stops to hit home?

Having said that, is it fair that people who occupy the bottom tiers of our society should be forced to live in squalid housing, just so the better off can get a sense of smug satisfaction at the plight of others? Are these sink estates to be used as warning to middle class children who decides he would like to bunk off school? Dad loads up the 4×4 and drives round the ‘working class’ estates, ‘Son, this is where you will end up if you don’t do your homework’.

Housing has, rightly or wrongly, has became a battlefield issue in the fight against the racial tensions that are growing up, especially in our inner cities. The Labour Party have been particularly lax in this area and now we can see the chickens are slowly coming to roost.

14. Alistair – . I agree with you about morality. H Morrison offered a welfare state from the cradle to the grave. H Morrison promised to build the Tories out of London. Towards the end of his life A Bevan was worrried the welfare state had reduced the resilience of the working class. The question the arises as to why is someone needy,because of bad lack -being born poor, in a abusive family with low intelligence and poor physical ability or by being lazy and feckless?
Should the lazy and feckless needy have the same access to the welfare state as the unlucky needy ?
,

“By implication, the government was saying that the claim that immigrants ‘jump the queue’ was justified and action needed to be taken.”

Why is there a queue? If X needs somewhere to live right now and cannot afford somewhere, you can offer to subsidise his rent. If he can afford to wait till he reaches the end of a queue he can obviously live without social housing – so he can hardly be said to “need” it.

Charlie @16

How do you define a public policy to decide which is which?

The other week there was a programme where people ‘faked homeless’. The ‘Celebes’ where forced to confront their own demons regarding drink/drugs, the real homeless had various issues regarding drink and drugs, but none more so than the ‘Celebes’.

Where any of the drunks more ‘feckless’ than Rosie Boycott? Rosie is a recovering alcoholic who has blown chance after second chance after chance. She has been badly damaged, both physically and mentally through her ‘self inflicted’ addiction, including by crashing a car the following day she was charged for being drunk in charge. In my book, that makes her one of the most feckless people in Europe, yet she has never been homeless? Why? Could it be that being born into a rich family and been given all the advantages that money can buy has insulated her from the very worse that that and being rich means you buy ways out of that destructive cycle?

Perhaps if ‘real’ homeless people had the same escape routes that she had there would be no homelessness?

If a person is homeless beause of drink/drugs they need help to turn their life around. However, a former heroin/alcohol addict told me that not matter what help is on offer; unless that person decides to make an effort to improve their life, nothing will work.

Charlie @19

I agree that unless that person wants to come off the junk they are doomed to be on it forever. However, I would suggest that the first step to getting them clean must be to clean up the estates and provide a better environment. If someone is living in dire straits that push them into drug/drinking culture then you have to get at the root causes of that culture.

That is no mean task in itself, but that is something that must be tackled or else our inner cities are going to continue decay. Housing is but one small piece of a very large, complex jigsaw.

That data is quite consistent with, say, immigrants being put straight to the top of social housing queues. Perhaps only 11 per cent of immigrants who arrived in the UK in the last five years applied to live in social housing, and all of them got housed straight away, and perhaps thousands of UK born people applied for social housing, but got turned away, resulting in only 17 per cent of UK born people living in social housing at the present time.

So you’re saying that immigrants apply in the exact proportion to which they are entitled but that British born people vastly over subscribed. Your evidence is that this is what it could mean, rather than us simply having a non-discriminatory housing system.

Occam’s razor says that you’re wrong.

The report is here. Have you read it, do you know if your assertion has been answered or not?

I have some questions about the IPPR report – such as whether the figures were weighted to reflect long standing social housing residents (those who have been housed since the 70s for example) who were housed under very different rules and systems to those used now.

Good point, worth investigating. However, if one group has been underepresented in social housing to which they were entitled and they are now fairly represented, surely it is a good thing?

“The Thatcherites and Blairites opposed this and thought social housing should be a kind of special needs service, open only to people who really can’t get a mortgage or rent privately.”

Well yes, there is no reason for the government to house people who are already have a home.

The British state should deal with the needs of British and especially local people, first. Friends from Italy and Austria are amazed at the generosity of the provision of housing/housing support to immigrants in Britain. T

generosity!! pah!! You gotta admire people who make such stupid claims. Have you ever tried living in social housing provided by the state? I have. It’s not pretty, let me tell you that. and neither is it easy for people to get that housing, least of all immigrants. You don’t even have the facts to support your case Charlie, just a whole bunch of insults.

@3: If local people want local homes, they should bloody well make sure their kids don’t skip school, go to university themselves, get jobs rather than scrounge off the state, and then they’ll be wealthy enough to actually buy homes than get them from the state.

The problem is that houses are vastly overpriced due to distrotions of the market, mostly planning regulations; It costs £220k to buy a house, however to build a house only costs £20k.

Why is this? My theory is the average Labour MP cares more about maximising the expenses on their second home than whether their constituents can afford a first home. The cunts.

Having said all that, what good reason is there for people who are not UK or EU citizens to be given social housing or housing benefits? None, as far as I can see.

@23 Perfect comment, Sunny. Immigrants don’t jump the queue, and when they get to the front after sometimes being held in detention centres and generally being hated by the media and many in the public, what they get isn’t anyone’s picture of generosity.

“Have you ever tried living in social housing provided by the state? I have. It’s not pretty, let me tell you that.”

I ran a housing estate in Westminster for many years. It was a very beautiful one within a very beautiful area (courtesy of ‘We will build the Tories out of London’ Morrison) with the private houses nearby selling for circa £4 million.

The social tenants are treated like pampered siamese cats – boilers breaking down in winter – fixed within 24 hours (try getting that service if you are not a social tenant), new kitchens and bathrooms installed within a time-frame – 10 days – unheard of in the private sector. Rent for a 3 bedroomed maisonette circa £130 per week – inclusive of all repairs and the new kitchens, bathrooms and major works – double-glazed windows.

All the voids over the last seven years have gone to non EU immigrants for whatever reason and they have been welcomed by their neighbours.. These new residents’ main complaint was the lack of the Hotbird satellite service – needless to say, this service is also being installed at no cost to the social tenants although, of course, any private lessee on the estates will be charged a share of the installation costs. Now not all councils provide such an excellent service (oh no! dreadful Tory Westminster) and not all estates are as beautiful as this one – but I can assure you, Sunny, that to get a flat in Westminster is a tremendous benefit.

‘Well yes, there is no reason for the government to house people who are already have a home.’

And there is no reason for the government to heal people who already have private medical care.

There is no reason for the government to fund TV news when people already have Sky.

No reason for the government to fund the Black Watch when we already have Executive Outcomes.

The class system in this country is pretty complex, but some aspects of it are pretty straightforward. In 21C mixed-economy capitalism, most people work for a living, and spend their money on status goods not necessities; this isn’t about the exceptions.

For middle class people, the only meaningful status good is a house: a pile of money that can buy a house can buy pretty much anything else without getting visibly smaller. Working class people, by definition, don’t make enough money to pay the inflated housing market prices set by middle class competition. So they get their housing provided cheaply and equally outside the status-competition system, instead competing for status on cheaper goods: clothes and cars and so on.

Quite a lot of middle class people think that working class people shouldn’t exist, that everyone should be middle class (i.e. pay market price for a house from a mortgage based off their wages). Some think the same of health care: a MRI scan should be a reward for hard work oe in-demand skills, as in the USA.

Kind of remarkable that new Labour lasted as long as it did while spanning such a fundamentally opposed set of cultural assumptions and economic interests.

Left Outside,

you have utterly misunderstood my point – have another go!

Sunny. My friends from Austria and Italy were comparing the housing support on offer to that in their own countries. From what I gather in Italy, people have to live with their parents until they marry unless they can afford to pay for their own home. It is much more difficult for Immigrants to obtain social housing in Italy and Austria than the UK, part of he reason why they prefer to come to this country. As my friends are multi-lingual and have lived in several european countries their comments are worth listening to.

20. Jimbo. I agree with you that to get people of the junk it is vital to get to the root of their problems which means everything from psychiatric support, diet, exercise, employment suport and removal from the area where they used to live to break the connection with other users and dealers.

Unless we know what’s happening with the number of available places in social housing, and how many applications there were from each group, we don’t know anything about bias toward any group – the sort of data cited above tells us nothing.

Immigrants that have applied in the last 5 years make up 11% of places for council housing. the other 89% would be British born or settled immigrants (I don’t know the term they use). Your arguement is that all the new spaces are going to new immigrants and that the 89% non new-immigrant council housing tenants are residual?

So despite the fact that no bais appears you are trying to use it as evidence that there is a bias?

Sadly, I’m not able to find any information on the actual distribution of new council housing spaces in the report. However there is a section which outines selection criteria and there appears no evidence of any bias towards newly arrived immigrants.

You don’t have any evidence to back up your case. In fact the evidence available militates against you, but you seem convinced of some sort of conspiracy.

Does the ‘11%’ figure really matter though? I doubt that 11% applies uniformly across the Nation. Some parts of the Country will see much higher proportions. I cannot see that an area where the figure in one particular ward would be 30% would somehow find solace in the fact another ward only received, say 5%. Even if the figure reflects to position in some areas, announcing the figures will hardly placate those who feel (rightly or wrongly) that they are being penalised. That anger is palpable and it doesn’t really matter if the anger is ‘justifiable’ according to the figures.

This ‘spin’ is exactly why people hold Labour politicians in contempt. They see the ‘real data’ on their very doorstep and within their neighbourhoods and they feel alienated. The political class broadcast the National figures at them and dismiss their complaints as ‘racist’. If you live in an inner city constituency were lots of immigrants live, what relevance to you are National statistics that cover area like the Shetlands, Cornwall and all points in between? You can see the evidence on the ground, but the Minister reads a figure from a spreadsheet.

When the BNP come along and confirm the ‘truth’, that the ‘real’ numbers of immigrants getting houses is closer to what you believe to be a true figure, it makes the rest of their ‘lies’ easier to swallow and the Minister looks even more shifty.

Last month we shook our heads as a million (give or take 50,000) people voted BNP, we need to engage these voters and address their fears and anger or we risk losing to the BNP in greater numbers. Sorry, but telling people they should have went to university when they had the chance will not swing it.

That anger is palpable and it doesn’t really matter if the anger is ‘justifiable’ according to the figures.

No, it does matter. Why should people suffer a poorer quality of life because of someone else’s idiocy? Why should an argument be given the same weight backed by prejudice as one backed by facts?

Last month we shook our heads as a million (give or take 50,000) people voted BNP, we need to engage these voters and address their fears and anger or we risk losing to the BNP in greater numbers

That’s exactly what this study does, it addresses their worries, but instead of saying “yeah, fuck the immigrants” it is reporting the facts of the situation.

How many stories have you read of immigrants being turned down for housing? None, not because it doesn’t happen, but because they are largely silent and invisible.

Asylum seekers aren’t entitled to housing, they aren’t even entitled to work, failed asylum seekers are left destitute. Those that are allowed in would have been treated to lovely stays in detention centres.

Immigrants pay a fortune to become citizens, and only after being made to jump through hoops like passing “citizenship tests” which 75% of the popualtion couldn’t pass.

All the while they pay their taxes, they work, they contribute and they get shat on by the right and used as an electioneering tool by Labour.

If you live in an inner city constituency were lots of immigrants live, what relevance to you are National statistics that cover area like the Shetlands, Cornwall and all points in between?

Because it shows that the housing is allocated in a non-discriminatory manner. If there are a lot of immigrants somewhere it seems likely that a lot of social housing will be filled with immigrants… Anything else would show a discrimination against immigrants and those in need and towards those who need the housing less urgently, hardly the point of social housing.

Your argument makes no sense, people feel discriminated against because housing is allocated in the right proportion… Seems a little odd.

I want more social housing, but even with those 11% of tenants turfed out do you really think there would be enough housing for everyone? Is council housing only oversubscribed by 1 million people?

People blame migrants, not because it’s their fault, but because they’re uninformed (I’ve met a lot of people at university equally uninformed and many that never went in a much better state) and they provide an easy narrative.

Left outside @34

“No, it does matter. Why should people suffer a poorer quality of life because of someone else’s idiocy? Why should an argument be given the same weight backed by prejudice as one backed by facts?”

I rather think you have missed the point. We are not talking about simple rational debates here. We are talking about people in poor housing who feel (rightly or wrongly) that their issues/problems are not being addressed or even listened to. Waving ‘facts’ and ‘figures’ will not simply make these issues go away, all it does is further inflame the situation. There is little point in telling people that they have got it good compared to the immigrants, they are not listening to that. If you want to speak to people about controversial, emotive subjects, you have to understand the problem and act pragmatically. You have to deal with people’s concerns as you find them, not as you think they should act. In the past the Labour Party and the left could and did, ignore these people and their concerns. The Labour Party did not have to work for these people’s votes because there was nowhere else to go. There is now a new dynamic to take into account, because if we continue to ignore these voters and don’t address these issues, people will turn to the BNP and the BNP will feed off their frustrations and use it to political and perhaps violent advantage.

Think about the HIV/AIDS epidemic as a way of a rather loose analogy. The right wanted to teach total abstinence regarding sex and drug use. We knew better. We knew we had to reach teenage/young adults and engage them in a language they understood and offer behaviour they could relate to. No point in starting a debate on TV explaining that sex outside marriage was wrong and immoral, underage sex even more so. We knew that if we said that, we would lose the audience and lose the war on HIV. We had to say that IF you were having sex, safe sex was the only alternative to stay healthy. We had to be pragmatic.

Same here. If we keep throwing up useless statistics at people, they will abandon us and move to the BNP.

“That’s exactly what this study does, it addresses their worries.”

That is the last thing it does. Do you really think a million people voted BNP because they simply have not got access to the correct figures? Do you honestly think that if they had the truth explained to them in a calm rational manner, they would see the BNP for what they are? No, people are angry with immigrants getting houses in their communities. The rationale behind these decisions is not relevant. The fact of the matter is, like it or not, the white working classes in these areas do not want large-scale immigration. I agree that for progressive people that is both worrying and dispiriting, but it is something we have to address. I reiterate the point; if we stand idly by, we risk these communities being hijacked by the likes of the BNP.

Like most people I found the situation in Belfast with those Romanian families the most distasteful scenes I have ever witnessed, I equate that with the pogroms of the last century. Although I fully understood the decision taken by many of them, I cannot help feeling that the Rubicon had been crossed. To see people forced out of homes has meant that a victory for thuggery can only inspire more attacks.

I cannot see a solution. I really feel at a loss as to how we as a Nation move forward. Really, these medieval tensions should have been dealt with decades ago, but they weren’t and now we are seeing the backlash.

“Your argument makes no sense, people feel discriminated against because housing is allocated in the right proportion… Seems a little odd.”

Again you have missed the point. People feel discriminated against because the system is perceived to be unfair because the houses are being allocated to immigrants before ‘indigenous’ people. It is not about ‘greatest need’, it is about ‘greatest need’ among white people. People do not care about the conditions that the immigrant/asylum seeker has endured. They want the housing to go to white people first, second and third.

Again, what we think of those attitudes are not relevant, not in this context, if we really want to tackle that attitude we need to address the housing needs of those people.As I have said before, we need to improve the standard of public sector/social housing if we want to address these deeper, more worrying attidudes.

33. Left Outside. Brilliant. You are the only person I have read who has so honestly and eloquently addressed this extermely important issue and been prepared to be open minded.

@33: Immigrants pay a fortune to become citizens, and only after being made to jump through hoops like passing “citizenship tests” which 75% of the popualtion couldn’t pass.

Good. It should be reasonably difficult (though not impossible) to become a citizen, for two reasons: so as not to let in riff-raff, and because people value something more if they’ve made an effort to get it.

All the while they pay their taxes, they work, they contribute and they get shat on by the right and used as an electioneering tool by Labour.

They aren’t being forced to live here; if the don’t like it, they have the option to leave.

@34: We are not talking about simple rational debates here.

Indeed not. People make up their minds politically — on this and other subjects — on largely emotional grounds not rational ones.

@Calambat

Good. It should be reasonably difficult (though not impossible) to become a citizen, for two reasons: so as not to let in riff-raff, and because people value something more if they’ve made an effort to get it.

I didn’t pass it. I have my citizenship, I’m fairly active in my community (was very active at uni, studied history and like my country an awful lot for a leftie.

A citizenship test can never test what you want it too. Citizenship is mainly “coursework,” memorial hall fayres, charity, history, binge drinking, queueing and a stiff upper lip. A test is just petty vindictiveness.

They aren’t being forced to live here; if the don’t like it, they have the option to leave.

Actually the Somalis, Zimbabweans, Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, Chinese, Saudi etc. have been forced to live here.

In any case, just because you don’t like immigrants doesn’t mean that the Government or press should treat them badly.

@jimbo

Do you honestly think that if they had the truth explained to them in a calm rational manner, they would see the BNP for what they are? No, people are angry with immigrants getting houses in their communities.

Well actually yes, people are colossally misinformed when it comes to immigration. If I believe half the things which some do then I’d be pretty pissed off too. (see disclaimer)

If we say “okay,” lets put whites to the top of the queue we are acknowledging that they are right and that immigrants are scum. Cheating lying scum that get what they don’t deserve by pissing on the “indiginous” population. How is that any way to combat the BNP.

You may look down on the general public. You may think their prejudice too ingrained for them to change their minds but I don’t. What they believed, what they were toldas fact by the vast majority of the press and political class is false. You think they are gonna say, “nah fuck it.”

They will if people stick with your attitude jimbo, but hopefully I will change some people’s minds. At least I have a hope of success, all you offer is a further decline into “British jobs for British people” and other racist dog whistles.

People do not care about the conditions that the immigrant/asylum seeker has endured.

Who do you hang out with? They don’t care about murder because someone is foreign? Bit harsh

If we keep throwing up useless statistics at people, they will abandon us and move to the BNP.

What useless statistic? The one that proves that immigrants aren’t “stealing housing.” Sounds really unhelpful when talking to people about immigrants stealing housing…….

You seem so scared of these people, so convinced that if we don’t treat them like idiot children they will turn to the BNP, that you undermine your own position.

(Disclaimer: some of the people that voted BNP are racist, not much we can do about them, we’re not a perfect rainbow nation so they will probably always get a residual vote.)

Left oustide

“Well actually yes, people are colossally misinformed when it comes to immigration.”

Worse than that, they have made up their minds on the subject. It is too late for leaflets and figures, all you are doing is preaching to the converted. These figures may tell us what we have suspected for years, but those figures do nothing to convince a significant proportion of the population that their fear/anger is unfounded. They do not want more immigration, irrespective of what the data concerning housing allocation says. For many people, ‘11’ per cent is still ‘11’ per cent too much. As I said earlier, we used to be able to ignore these people, but now they have people who will listen to them.

“If we say “okay,” lets put whites to the top of the queue we are acknowledging that they are right and that immigrants are scum. Cheating lying scum that get what they don’t deserve by pissing on the “indigenous” population. How is that any way to combat the BNP.”

I think you entirely miss the point I am making. Nowhere have I said the views held by these people are justified or acceptable. I am suggesting that these views are widely held among certain sections of our society. I am not suggesting that we ‘give in’ to the BNP we need to find better ways of combating them. When a million people vote BNP, I think it pretty fair to assume that current strategy to ignore those who vote BNP and give out the correct figures has failed. The Daily Mail and the Sun’s hate campaign has won. Immigration and race issues have been put to the top of the agenda.

We need to rectify the current shortage of social housing as much as possible. We also need to get people into decent jobs that pay decent wages, with terms and conditions too. We are losing a new generation to the BNP, for me, that is nothing short of a disgrace. When you consider the issues we have had over the years with Mosley, the NF, to finally see the BNP win seats and get into modest power is galling. What is worse, this was achieved whilst the Labour Party was in power. The one Party that should have been able to prevent the type of despair that drives people to the BNP. That is the real Blair/Brown legacy.

“You may look down on the general public. You may think their prejudice too ingrained for them to change their minds but I don’t. What they believed, what they were toldas fact by the vast majority of the press and political class is false. You think they are gonna say, “nah fuck it.””

Well the evidence is pretty conclusive. A million people did say ‘fuck it’, not in opinion polls, not on ‘newsnight’ but in the polling booth.

“They will if people stick with your attitude jimbo, but hopefully I will change some people’s minds. At least I have a hope of success, all you offer is a further decline into “British jobs for British people” and other racist dog whistles.”

The problem is, you have to be able to engage people before you can change your mind. These people have stopped listening to the people who tell them they are racists. The listen to people who say what they want to hear. As I said, a million people voted for racist, homophobic, holocaust deniers, after everyone told them not to. How do you convince people when they are not listening?

“Who do you hang out with? They don’t care about murder because someone is foreign? Bit harsh”

Classic political problem. You ignore people who say things you don’t want to hear, then convince yourself that they don’t exist. Remember these are the people who you are trying to convince that the BNP are wrong, but you have never met them.

You need to get onto the streets, into message boards, TV and radio phone ins etc and listen to what a vocal minority are saying.

.
“What useless statistic? The one that proves that immigrants aren’t “stealing housing.” Sounds really unhelpful when talking to people about immigrants stealing housing…….
You seem so scared of these people, so convinced that if we don’t treat them like idiot children they will turn to the BNP, that you undermine your own position.”

These stastics are useless if people don’t believe them or are not interested in them. People are used to statistics being used to ‘prove’ anything. Many people stop believing them.

So far the anti BNP movement has been pretty ineffective. Can you explain when the strategy is likely to start working?

“Why is there a queue? If X needs somewhere to live right now and cannot afford somewhere, you can offer to subsidise his rent. If he can afford to wait till he reaches the end of a queue he can obviously live without social housing – so he can hardly be said to “need” it.”

This is the bit I don’t understand – where are all the people on the list living at the moment ? There are loads of empty private rental properties at the moment if you are that keen to get out of your current situation go and live in one ?

@38: A citizenship test can never test what you want it too. Citizenship is mainly “coursework,” memorial hall fayres, charity, history, binge drinking, queueing and a stiff upper lip. A test is just petty vindictiveness.

I’ve just tried the citizenship test and I did pass it. I had to guess on some of the questions though. If someone wants to be a UK citizen, thry’ll be prepared to put a bit of effort in revising for the test.

Actually the Somalis, Zimbabweans, Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, Chinese, Saudi etc. have been forced to live here.

Not by thre British govrnment. If they are refugees, I think it’s reasonable that Britain take some in in proportion to our land area.

In any case, just because you don’t like immigrants doesn’t mean that the Government or press should treat them badly.

I don’t dislike immigrants. I have plenty of friends who’re immigrants, some of whom are now British citizens. I just don’t think foreigners should have a right to live here. Living in Britain should be a priviledge not a right.

If we say “okay,” lets put whites to the top of the queue

No-one (apart from the BNP) is saying that. I think British people should be at the top of the queue. British != white.

Charlie: “When the there are spare properties after the British people have been housed, then they can be allocated to immigrants.”

Which, to anyone who knows about the state of social housing in this country, just highlights the fundamental problem.

There are not enough properties to house all British people who need them. Come to that, there are not enough properties to house even completely homeless British people. Even just those with several children. The idea of spare properties is ludicrous. You could bar anyone without a great-great-great-great-grandfather born within a mile, and you *still* wouldn’t have spare council houses.

Besides, even if you did exclude all immigrants in the last three generations from council housing, this would actually mean nothing, in terms of ‘fairness’ for the taxpayer: Anyone who doesn’t get a council house gets paid housing benefit to live in private rented housing, costing the taxpayer far more than they would living in a council house. If the government didn’t do that, we’d have people living in shacks on squatted land (like they do in Italy, by the way – occasionally they hit the news when fascist thugs set fire to them).

To be demanding “indigenous” British priority over council houses is like squabbling over a single log in a lake where 1,000 people are drowning. The problem is not allocation. The problem is that over the last ten years barely a single Council house has been built (with funding priority given to ‘shared ownership’, targeting a much better-off class of swing voter), and meanwhile property speculation has been allowed to run riot, driving up rents across the board, and forcing the taxpayer to pay those rents via the housing benefit bill.

@42 Jungle: The problem is that over the last ten years barely a single Council house has been built (with funding priority given to ’shared ownership’, targeting a much better-off class of swing voter), and meanwhile property speculation has been allowed to run riot, driving up rents across the board, and forcing the taxpayer to pay those rents via the housing benefit bill.

Indeed. If the government had any sense, it would build loads of council houses.