Research finds no bias towards migrants for council housing

[Halibut]

In other words immigrants are indeed taking council housing,1 in 10 is given to immigrants,enough said.

 

Are you suggesting that that's one too many?

[zongamin]

You try telling that to the average unemployed chav or white trailer trash on the mannor estate.

 

You mean the ones that are already IN council houses?

 

Think about it......

[retep]

Retep, can you just re-read it. Think about the words temporarily, may be .......

 

In other words, exactly as was said on the other thread, some social housing which is extremely undesireable could be used as temporary accommodation for those who cannot work, have no recourse to public funds, and don't even know where they're likely to be in the country, and living in overcrowded conditions.

 

Now hands up all those on the waiting list who have been clamouring for these properties? That's a question for you.

 

You can call it temporary unwanted or anything else you like , its social housing and anyone put in it ahead of someone else on the waiting list is jumping the queue.

Now how many property's are reserved for asylum seekers, a system that is not in place for the rest.

[Tricky]

Interesting report. Interesting in that there is no evidence presented to underpin any of their claims ... http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/ehrc_report_-_social_housing_allocation_and_immigrant_communities.pdf

Note figure 5 from which the headline has been drawn, Source IPPR calculations. What's that supposed to mean? Where are the calculations? What are the underlying numbers? Why are they not publishing them or their location?

 

99.3% of IPPR employees are not knowledgeable enough to work out their age let alone analyse domestic housing policy. Source: Tricky's calculations.

 

And why are they including people who are ineligible for social housing? Surely that defeats the whole point, which was to show that there is no bias in the system. All they have shown is that a whole bunch of people who can't get social housing, don't get social housing. Duh.

 

It's what happens when you get a bunch of Oxbridge History graduates trying to interpret numbers.

[TeaFan]

Interesting report. Interesting in that there is no evidence presented to underpin any of their claims ... http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/ehrc_report_-_social_housing_allocation_and_immigrant_communities.pdf

Note figure 5 from which the headline has been drawn, Source IPPR calculations. What's that supposed to mean? Where are the calculations? What are the underlying numbers? Why are they not publishing them or their location?

 

But they do quote their source. It doesn't say "source: ippr calculations", does it? It says "LFS and ippr calculations". LFS is the Labour Force Survey, the preferred data set for household surveys, since it is a much bigger sample than the Survey of English Housing.

 

And then they print the source figures, giving housing tenure and landlord type by country of birth from the Labour Force Survey on pages 59 to 63. Surely you saw those?

 

And in Endnote 3 the report says

Because the LFS is a sample-based survey rather than a population census, data

from it should be treated as estimates subject to the standard errors. The ippr has

rounded the data in the LFS-based tables in this report, usually to the nearest per

cent, but the figures remain estimates rather than definitive.

 

I took that to refer to the ippr calculations, since the pie chart at A5 is their compilation of the data from the LFS.

[TeaFan]

You can call it temporary unwanted or anything else you like , its social housing and anyone put in it ahead of someone else on the waiting list is jumping the queue.

 

Not actually true, because the waiting list is for permant housing, not temporary housing, but

 

Now how many property's are reserved for asylum seekers, a system that is not in place for the rest.

is a good question. How many do you think in Sheffield? Tell you what, you have a guess, and I'll make a Freedom of Information Act request to get the actual figure and we'll compare them.

[Wildcat]

Interesting report. Interesting in that there is no evidence presented to underpin any of their claims ... http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/ehrc_report_-_social_housing_allocation_and_immigrant_communities.pdf

Note figure 5 from which the headline has been drawn, Source IPPR calculations. What's that supposed to mean? Where are the calculations? What are the underlying numbers? Why are they not publishing them or their location?

 

99.3% of IPPR employees are not knowledgeable enough to work out their age let alone analyse domestic housing policy. Source: Tricky's calculations.

 

As Teafan has pointed out the source you missed is directly underneath the table. The Labour Force Survey.

 

And why are they including people who are ineligible for social housing? Surely that defeats the whole point, which was to show that there is no bias in the system. All they have shown is that a whole bunch of people who can't get social housing, don't get social housing. Duh.

 

It's what happens when you get a bunch of Oxbridge History graduates trying to interpret numbers.

 

The report is about the impact of migrants on social housing. If they were to exclude migrants not eligible for Council Housing then the calculations would be about something totally different.

 

17% of locally born population is in social housing and 11% of arrivals in the last 5 years are in social housing.

 

That shows a lot more than "a whole bunch of people who can't get social housing, don't get social housing."

 

You point makes no sense.

[Tricky]

...And then they print the source figures, giving housing tenure and landlord type by country of birth from the Labour Force Survey on pages 59 to 63. Surely you saw those?...

 

Oh yes. Would you care to explain how that bunch of bar charts is at all relevant to the headline findings concerning immigrants who have moved here in the last 5 years?

 

The LFS may or may not contain that data but I want the source not some airy-fairy "it's over there somewhere". This is supposed to be a professional organisation.

[retep]

You can call it temporary unwanted or anything else you like , its social housing and anyone put in it ahead of someone else on the waiting list is jumping the queue.

 

Not actually true, because the waiting list is for permant housing, not temporary housing, but

 

is a good question. How many do you think in Sheffield? Tell you what, you have a guess, and I'll make a Freedom of Information Act request to get the actual figure and we'll compare them.

 

If it's social housing and someone is in it temporary or not they are still in it, do you think they become invisible.

 

You send for your FOIA it will save me guessing.

If there is only one it's one who has preference over the rest.

[Tricky]

As Teafan has pointed out the source you missed is directly underneath the table. The Labour Force Survey.

 

 

 

The report is about the impact of migrants on social housing. If they were to exclude migrants not eligible for Council Housing then the calculations would be about something totally different.

 

17% of locally born population is in social housing and 11% of arrivals in the last 5 years are in social housing.

 

That shows a lot more than "a whole bunch of people who can't get social housing, don't get social housing."

 

You point makes no sense.

 

Well we're getting to the truth of it now aren't we; unwittingly in your case, obviously. The report's findings and the press release for the EHRC are two separate things.

 

"You point makes no sense" makes no sense either by the way. My point is that the figures the EHRC quote are out of context because as you rightly point out, they were from a report which set out to prove something different and so relied on a different dataset to the one that should have been used. And that report (from IPPR) failed to source its information properly leading to the inevitable conclusion that its results are not trustworthy.

 

But even the most casual browse of the biogs of the staff of both organisations will lead you to admit that both organisations are far more concerned with the media, PR and spin; than letting mere facts get in the way.