Research finds no bias towards migrants for council housing

[retep]

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 ....

 

 

 

..... 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?

 

Dismissed as drivel.

[skinz]

Dismissed as drivel.

 

 

The best way to dismiss drivel is not to reply...literally.

[Tricky]

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

 

...

 

You can carry on deliberately missing the point as long as you like; it just means I get to make it again.

 

The headline numbers that EHRC quoted to support their claim, included a subset of immigrants that should not have been included and thus the EHRC claim is invalid.

 

I'm not interested in going off topic to discuss other research. Start a new thread if you are.

[Tricky]

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.

 

Then we seem to be roughly in agreement. Although I thought I'd see how the BoE handled their references and went onto their home page and typed in source and LFS into the search box. The first report it threw up was this one...http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/quarterlybulletin/qb060401.pdf

And I think you'd agree that the way the LFS data is referenced and explained on p. 376 & 377 and again in later tables is a world away from the IPPR referencing.

 

To bring the above back on topic, you could probably use the BoE interpretations of the data (in table A say, or from a more relevant report) to re-estimate the IPPR data - which isn't how it should be really.

[happyhippy]

Dismissed as drivel.

 

Tell me why it is.

[Wildcat]

You can carry on deliberately missing the point as long as you like; it just means I get to make it again.

 

The headline numbers that EHRC quoted to support their claim, included a subset of immigrants that should not have been included and thus the EHRC claim is invalid.

 

I'm not interested in going off topic to discuss other research. Start a new thread if you are.

 

I really don't see what you are on about. Everything said in the Press release is supported by the research.

 

Table 5: Housing tenure distribution by country-of-birth, 2007 referenced in the Op uses precisely the right data. The proportions given are of those who are in each type of accomodation: Owner occupier, Private tenant, Social Tenant and Other. Each table is a subset of the general population in those types of accomodation. The proportion given for migrants in Social Housing only includes those migrants in social housing no one else.

 

Your point doesn't make any sense, because it is factually incorrect that there are any additional migrants included and even if there were it would increase the impact not reduce it.

[Wildcat]

Then we seem to be roughly in agreement. Although I thought I'd see how the BoE handled their references and went onto their home page and typed in source and LFS into the search box. The first report it threw up was this one...http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/quarterlybulletin/qb060401.pdf

And I think you'd agree that the way the LFS data is referenced and explained on p. 376 & 377 and again in later tables is a world away from the IPPR referencing.

 

To bring the above back on topic, you could probably use the BoE interpretations of the data (in table A say, or from a more relevant report) to re-estimate the IPPR data - which isn't how it should be really.

 

But, there is much more information about the methodology and references in the IPPR report than the Bank of England one? Even though the bank of England uses more datasets.

 

Not only are there the 3 pages at the front of the IPPR document explaining the methodology, there is also further information in the endnotes section. The Bank of England document only has a page and a half.

[TeaFan]

I really don't see what you are on about. Everything said in the Press release is supported by the research.

 

Table 5: Housing tenure distribution by country-of-birth, 2007 referenced in the Op uses precisely the right data. The proportions given are of those who are in each type of accomodation: Owner occupier, Private tenant, Social Tenant and Other. Each table is a subset of the general population in those types of accomodation. The proportion given for migrants in Social Housing only includes those migrants in social housing no one else.

 

Your point doesn't make any sense, because it is factually incorrect that there are any additional migrants included and even if there were it would increase the impact not reduce it.

 

I think the weakness is with regard to the numbers of foreign-born people in social housing who have come to the UK in the last 5 years. The report makes mention of it, but doesn't include graphs from the LFS which is where the original data came from. Therefore it's only open to people with access to and the ability to use the quarterly LFS datasets to check the figures, whereas if they'd included them then anyone could have checked (although you could of course go back ad infinitum and demand to check the raw data the LFS collected and used, which after a certain point may become a little ridiculous). That said, I'm sure people like Migration Watch have access to the LFS data, so there is a check and balance there.

[TeaFan]

Then we seem to be roughly in agreement. Although I thought I'd see how the BoE handled their references and went onto their home page and typed in source and LFS into the search box. The first report it threw up was this one...http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/quarterlybulletin/qb060401.pdf

And I think you'd agree that the way the LFS data is referenced and explained on p. 376 & 377 and again in later tables is a world away from the IPPR referencing.

 

To bring the above back on topic, you could probably use the BoE interpretations of the data (in table A say, or from a more relevant report) to re-estimate the IPPR data - which isn't how it should be really.

 

The slightly daft thing is that the IPPR research seems designed to investigate the claims that are often made that migrants and asylum seekers are given preferential treatment in the allocation of social housing, and you don't even need to look at the percentages of social tenants by country of birth to do that. Because the Housing Act makes it unlawful for councils to allocate social housing to people subject to immigration control, and because people like A8, EU and EEA nationals all have legal limits on their eligibility, all you have to do is examine councils' allocations policies to check whether they are lawful and conform to the legislation. If they are and they do, then their policies can't favour migrants and asylum seekers over UK citizens and those with a right to reside.

 

British and Rep of Ireland citizens are the only people whose nationality gives them preference over others in their eligibility for social housing, because it's automatic. No-one else's is, based on nationality.

[retep]

Well seeing as no one else has brought it up,

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:GL7FwTuOV0QJ:www.ccsr.ac.uk/staff/Ludi/documents/CREcomplaint12June2007.doc+trevor+philips+statistics+disrepute&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk