Should British residents be given priority for social housing over new immigrants?

Question

Or do you think it was Thatcher's plan in the 1980's to right to buy Council houses has made the problem worse?
Or it is anyone who is need to have a house?

Answer 1

Two questions here.Firstly the priority for social housing should be based on local ties and local residents given precedence.My local council does this and states that only in a most urgent case would immigrants or asylum seekers be housed.But not all councils are the same,A lot of the arguments are political. The sale of council houses under the right to buy scheme since the 1980's has meant that many thousands of ordinary people who would have spent their whole life as council tenants with nothing to show at the end of it were able to buy their houses at heavily discounted prices.It was marvellous for those who qualified for the maximum discount and could afford to buy.In many cases the mortgage payment was less than the rent,but again the housekolder would be liable for insurance and maintenance.The plan was fine. Many run down estates were transformed when the houses were owned and people took more pride in the area they lived in.Where it fell down was that as council housing stocks were depleted they were not permitted to use the money from sales to build new council houses to restore the balance.The government policy at the time seemed to be that it should not be necessary to have council houses if every body worked and saved and everyone should buy their house or flat.This could only work in times of full employment,high wages and low inflation.All of these things went wrong.The rsult now is that councils are not permitted to build new houses themselves.Social houding is provided by housing associations who accepyt nominations from the council housing lists but the supply of these houses is inadequate even if you exclude the asylum seekers and immigrants.The majority of newcomers actually rent property or rooms in the private sector.

Answer 2

Naturally we should take priority over immigrants! We know that! Unfortunately the Government does not - and the problem will never be fully resolved until Labour has been given the push! Cabinet Ministers and MPs are happy enough because they are not put in a position where housing is a problem for them.

The right to buy council houses is not an issue.

Mike

Answer 3

SOme points against this idea I can think off. Employers should hire the best talent possible, and it shouldnt be about nationality. Also we are all in the EU toether. Would it be fair if you moved to sweden and you couldnt get ajob because less qualified swedish people took priorirty. We are all Europeans! Another argument could be that the concept of 'nation' is completely arbitrary and is only based on some lines drawn on a map so meaningless. So it would just be illogical to discriminate based on these lines. Also it is discrimantory in nature and all forms of discrimination are morally wrong, even positive. Maybe say that a liberal democracys law says we are all equal and this principle could applyh to employment. erm.... could say is a waste of employers time having to choose people based on whether they are immigrants or not when hey should just be getting on with running business. Maybe even affect the economy! Also a good argument for me is how could this be enforced? Do we say to businesses that ethy have to hire 85% enbglish and 15% non englaih., What happens if they dont cply... do the executives go to prison, or the stock holders, or the person doing the interview. Who is repsponsible. Also..... if the governmet makes laws telling business what to do isnt this against the notion of free enterprise? Surely the government should have limited powers not more? I think you could expand on these a bit more, but just somedeas that you could work with

Answer 4

Our own people should get it all...but Rat Thatcher's selling off the council stock of homes was the worst thing that has happened to houses ever.

Answer 5

the housing situation is dire all over the country, but having lived in both scotland and england i saw huge differences in the way its handled. england seems to have a 1st come 1st served policy and scotland has allocated areas for immigrants. both have their plus/minus points but neither work well. the right to buy scheme took financial pressures off the councils but created a shortage as they didnt plough the money into rebuilding or regeneration creating a shortage
oh i could go on all day-kick my soap box from under me somebody-please!

Answer 6

If these scroats who come to this country only to take from it can't afford to buy or rent somewhere to live they should be given a free seat on a aeroplane back to where they came from.

They already get handouts so why should theses leeches be given homes too? Although having said all this, we give homes, rent, gas, electric, water and council tax all free to teenage slags who knock out babies just to qualify for a life of sponging because they can't be bothered to work at school and pass some exams in order to get a job.

Answer 7

Yes of course they should,only a pollititian would say different.
The right to buy your house didn`t add to the population of the country unlike immigration,its also causing massive problems in our education departments to their using resources to employ specific language teachers for the minority reducing the budget for the majority.

Answer 8

Definitely. I know there's freedom of movement for residents of the EU, but there should be a rule that if you move to another country you should have the means to support yourself and not sponge off the state of your chosen new homeland.

Answer 9

What's so wrong with building more council houses so everyone can get one?
Margaret Hodge should resign now.

Answer 10

Without a doubt.