Research finds no bias towards migrants for council housing

[Wildcat]

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.

 

The report puts them in precisely the right context and the context that I gave to it.

 

The press release about bias is based on an analysis in the same report on housing policies across the country.

 

Do some groups have unfair access to social housing?

Analysis of social housing allocation policies showed no evidence that social housing allocation favours foreign migrants over UK citizens. But there is a small amount of evidence which suggests that they may, unintentionally, discriminate against ethnic minority communities who may also have less understanding than white groups, of their housing rights and housing allocation.

Social housing allocation policies differed in their content and method of allocating points or bands. There were differences in how characteristics of applicants were weighted by different local authorities, for example, some local authorities awarded points for families with children who did not have use of a garden, while others did not. Some policies, in particular banding systems, lacked transparency and were rather difficult to understand.

Some local authority social housing allocation policies gave priority to certain

social characteristics, for example, to a local connection. This had the potential to discriminate against migrants and longer settled ethnic minority communities, who may have few relatives in the UK or a lesser period of settlement.

Overall, policies represented an attempt to prioritise the most needy at a time of severe shortage in the supply of social housing. In this respect, the allocation policies were fair. There was no evidence that allocation policies discriminated against white groups.

 

page ix Executive Summary.

 

Either you have dismissed the report without understanding it or I have completely misunderstood what you are saying.

[dandelion59]

Are you suggesting that that's one too many?

 

Of course it is silly.

[Tricky]

The report puts them in precisely the right context and the context that I gave to it.

 

The press release about bias is based on an analysis in the same report on housing policies across the country.

 

 

 

page ix Executive Summary.

 

Either you have dismissed the report without understanding it or I have completely misunderstood what you are saying.

 

I will try and simplify it for you.

 

The EHRC made a claim, referenced in the OP, that councils were not discriminating in favour of recent immigrants in terms of housing. That claim was based on figures that contained a large number of recent immigrants who weren't eligible for council housing. Therefore that claim is not demonstrated.

 

The figures that the EHRC quote came from a report by the IPPR that failed to state in any meaningful way where the figures came from. They certainly aren't contained within the appendices.

[Wildcat]

I will try and simplify it for you.

 

The EHRC made a claim, referenced in the OP, that councils were not discriminating in favour of recent immigrants in terms of housing. That claim was based on figures that contained a large number of recent immigrants who weren't eligible for council housing. Therefore that claim is not demonstrated.

 

The claim is made in the report based on their analysis of Council policies from around the country. See my quote above.

 

The analysis in Table 5, from data obtained from the Labour Force Survey for 2007 is supporting evidence.

 

The figures that the EHRC quote came from a report by the IPPR that failed to state in any meaningful way where the figures came from. They certainly aren't contained within the appendices.

 

The data is clearly referenced as coming from the Labour Force Survey for 2007.

 

You should find it in the relevant one of these datasets:

http://www.esds.ac.uk/Government/lfs/

[Tricky]

The claim is made in the report based on their analysis of Council policies from around the country. See my quote above.

 

The analysis in Table 5, from data obtained from the Labour Force Survey for 2007 is supporting evidence.

 

 

 

...

 

Crap. The numbers came from the IPPR report.

 

And if you think "you should be able to find the data you're looking for in one of these datasets" is an acceptable form of referencing, you've got some adjusting to do.

[TeaFan]

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.

 

I take your point re: LFS data. The data sets are huge and for the lay person, finding the one which contains the specific data is extremely difficult, as I have just discovered. I have also discovered that a number of organisations, including the Bank of England, seem to refer to LFS quarterly data in this very broad way, which isn't particularly helpful. It is relevant of course because while the percentage of non-British born people in social housing is fairly low, it would be useful to know if this proportion is accelerating or not, and if so at what rate.

 

Allocations policies is a much clearer area, since the relevant information is in Housing Act 1996, which states that people subject to immigration control are not eligible for social housing, and neither are EU and EEA nationals straight away - some of them will become eligible in time, others won't. In this sense, allocation of social housing clearly favours UK citizens, and quite rightly I think.

[TeaFan]

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.

 

You just don't get it, do you? All sorts of people will, at various times, have preference over other people in their eligibility for social housing. It can be because they are victims of domestic violence, because they are homeless and have kids, because they are over 60, because they can no longer manage the stairs in their property, because they've been flooded, all manner of reasons.

 

For each of those people who manage to secure social housing, there is probably someone complaining that "so-and-so got something that I didn't". It has nothing to do with ethnicity or race, it is all to do with need, because that is what happens when a resource is allowed to become as scarce as social housing has become. That's why people will see all manner of unfairness when it comes to housing.

 

What is needed is a massive social housing building programme, at around 300,000 properties per year for at least the next 5 years. At the moment there might be about 100 council properties containing asylum seekers in Sheffield, out of around 47,000 properties in total, a tiny percentage.

 

If we went back to the original stock in Sheffield of 80,000 properties, you'd still be complaining that a handful of people were living in tiny bedsits temporarily, even though there would be properties standing empty and unlettable as there were as recently as 5 years ago, because that narrow sliver of the housing picture is all you want to see. Pull your head out of your arse, man! The problems with the social housing sector are way, way bigger than that, and they've got to this state because too many people would rather indulge themselves in small-scale gripes than put pressure on politicians to do the business on housing. Let me ask you, did you ever get involved in the Defend Council Housing campaign? What pressure have you ever put on any politician to reverse the decades-long decline in social housing? Very few people have done anything of the sort, they've all just sat back and watched while successive governments have failed to do anything. People in this country have become complacent and lazy, and can only whine that "nothing is being done" instead of getting off their arses and getting it done.

[Wildcat]

Crap. The numbers came from the IPPR report.

 

And if you think "you should be able to find the data you're looking for in one of these datasets" is an acceptable form of referencing, you've got some adjusting to do.

 

Stamping your foot won't make you right. IPPR used data from LFS 2007 it says so immediately underneath the table.

 

I look forward to you dismissing reports from MigrationWatch on the same basis, because you will find they too cannot reference the datasets any more directly either because of how they are compiled they have restrictions on their access.

 

If you are prepared to spend a little money or you represent a research establishment you too will be able to access the data that IPPR used off the LFS, in just the same way Civitas, MigrationWatch etc, do.

 

http://www.esds.ac.uk/support/newuser.asp

[happyhippy]

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.

 

No, they're not jumping any queue. Not only is it a small amount of housing which is used (most is in the private sector), and not reserved, but any queue is for permanent housing, as your question ....

 

Now hands up all on the waiting list who have got permanent accomodation within 13 months.

 

..... was surely alluding to. And has been laid waste to utterly.

 

Now, which debate do you want to take forward? The one which involves people who do not fall into any of the same considerations as the resident population when looking at statutorily homeless applications (as asylum seekers are not statutorily homeless), despite the fact that all people at this point are taken under a duty of care if they have nowhere that night, or the difference between rehousing and homelessness which you fail, or refuse to understand?

[retep]

You just don't get it, do you? All sorts of people will, at various times, have preference over other people in their eligibility for social housing. It can be because they are victims of domestic violence, because they are homeless and have kids, because they are over 60, because they can no longer manage the stairs in their property, because they've been flooded, all manner of reasons.

 

For each of those people who manage to secure social housing, there is probably someone complaining that "so-and-so got something that I didn't". It has nothing to do with ethnicity or race, it is all to do with need, because that is what happens when a resource is allowed to become as scarce as social housing has become. That's why people will see all manner of unfairness when it comes to housing.

 

What is needed is a massive social housing building programme, at around 300,000 properties per year for at least the next 5 years. At the moment there might be about 100 council properties containing asylum seekers in Sheffield, out of around 47,000 properties in total, a tiny percentage.

 

If we went back to the original stock in Sheffield of 80,000 properties, you'd still be complaining that a handful of people were living in tiny bedsits temporarily, even though there would be properties standing empty and unlettable as there were as recently as 5 years ago, because that narrow sliver of the housing picture is all you want to see. Pull your head out of your arse, man! The problems with the social housing sector are way, way bigger than that, and they've got to this state because too many people would rather indulge themselves in small-scale gripes than put pressure on politicians to do the business on housing. Let me ask you, did you ever get involved in the Defend Council Housing campaign? What pressure have you ever put on any politician to reverse the decades-long decline in social housing? Very few people have done anything of the sort, they've all just sat back and watched while successive governments have failed to do anything. People in this country have become complacent and lazy, and can only whine that "nothing is being done" instead of getting off their arses and getting it done.

 

So you lose the argument and attack the poster.

I know what's needed is more housing, I also know a curb is needed on immigration, it's you who has your head up your **se for trying to defend it.

It moves nothing forward to say it's okay, they are not taking anyones place in the queue, when clearly they are.

The Defend Council Housing campaign did a lot for Sheffield i don't think, our illustrious libore council pulled perfectly good housing down.

But they did give us some nice meadow flowers to replace them.

 

And the reason we need 300,000 properties per year for at least the next 5 years, is?.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/55

 

The biggest pressure you can put on government is by disagreeing with one sided drivel reports like the one just put out.