I know Margaret Hodge’s remarks were said a couple of days ago, so I am slightly slow to be commenting on it.
I cannot believe that she said, ‘British people should get housing above immigrants coming to the UK.’ I have to agree with Alan Johnson’s remarks that it was the language that the BNP would use.
Housing allocation like the NHS should be done entirely upon need, not where you were born! I can imagine the reaction from Labour benches if one of our frontbench spokesman said a remark like this, ’same old racist Tories bla bla bla.’ I think the remarks are outrageous, and I do hope Brown does not appoint her on his frontbench.
25/05/2007 at 10:03 |
This little fracas reminds me of the one regarding Patrick Mercer’s comments, a few months back. Like Mercer’s, Hodge’s comments were at worst ill-thought through, but to call them racist is grossly inaccurate, and makes us sound like the socialist political correctness brigade!
If Hodge’s point was simply that the British government has a duty of care, first and foremost, to the citizens of this country (as I suspect it was), then I personally have no qualm with it. The Minister in question raised a point she deemed important, and like Jack Straw for his comments concerning the Muslim veil, I commend her for doing so. It is true that had it been the other way round, the Tory benches would have been inundated with cries of ‘foul!’, but that is no reason for us to act in the same overly sensitive and pompous fashion.
25/05/2007 at 11:26 |
I have to agree with Jack. In particular his reference to the “social political correctness brigade” !
25/05/2007 at 11:39 |
i was actually going to blog on this today! but was beaten. lol i think that the allocation needs to be based on need, but the needs of the local community, not having people from london placed in glasgow for example. i do not think there should be a preference to British people becasue they have had the benefits of life here and are thus inherently less in need than a refugee who can hardly read. economic immigrants should only be given socia housing for one year, then they should be expected to make it in the market.
25/05/2007 at 11:57 |
I disagree with Margaret Hodge.
She has said that social housing allocation should be based on length of residence, citizenship and national insurance contributions.
Like the NHS social housing should be allocated on the basis of need, and if that means immigrants are more needy then they should be allocated housing first. It really is very simple.
I find it odd that Margaret Hodge should say anything else, unless she’s pandering to the Daily Mail.
25/05/2007 at 11:58 |
Excuse my flippancy, but does a nice house help said refugee to read? I presume not. There does have to be a balance here, I agree. I think, Ryan, your point about the needs of the local community, however, is dubious. If most asylum seekers, for example, happen to land at a London airport (simply because of the international connections), it’s hardly fair to expect Londoners to accommodate them all.
That said, this stream has already moved dangerously close to merging the quite distinct issues of asylum and immigration.
PS. Who did write this blog? Reveal yourself!
25/05/2007 at 12:02 |
No Jack. But the fact they can’t read might amke them more needy of a home to live in? Perhaps.
Social housing allocation should be based on need.
25/05/2007 at 12:08 |
I don’t dispute your point Daniel, as a rule. However, the point Hodge was making is that perhaps the ‘needs’ of British citizens should come before the ‘needs’ of foreign nationals. To what extent she takes this point, and to what extent I agree, i’m not quite sure. It is, however, a point worthy of some thought.
25/05/2007 at 12:11 |
Some thought, but not much. I hope she gets her column in the mail.
25/05/2007 at 13:05 |
My point about literacy was that they would need housing more than someone who could read because the literate person would be able to get a job for example. i do not think British people should be put first. it is a question of need and that only. my point about locality was that if in a certaily locality someone is in the greatest need they should get the housing in t hat area over someone from a long way away, this would help maintain community relations, but i accpet that you cannot expect the south east to take a disproportionate amount. the point i raised about economic migrants i would support they should not be considered for housing for more than one year because they hae chosen to come here just ot make money where as refugees have come here for thier safety i think this is a key difference
25/05/2007 at 13:05 |
i think it was jimmy btw.
25/05/2007 at 14:55 |
It was indeed me! I do reveal myself, I forgot to click my name on it.
I stand by my original marks, the point I would like to re emphasise though is what the Labour reaction would be if a frontbench spokesman of ours had said this.
As has been pointed out in the media today, only 1% of housing which the government allocates is given to foreign nationals.
25/05/2007 at 16:11 |
Exactly, so her remarks make no real difference what so ever. I agree with the principle of her remarks not because i feel that the housing allocation is DOMINATED by foreign nationals. Rather I agree with her in the sense that the principle of the British government should be to look after British people. Foreign nationals don’t pay taxes, ergo they don’t deserve the same privellages. However should they become naturalised British citizens then they should be entitled to the same benefits of afforded to all British citizens.
As for if the shoe was on the other foot and it was remarks from the Tory front bench then I have no doubt that we would be levvelled with simmilar criticisms and stereotypical remarks. However the Tories shouldn’t bring themselves down to the level of Labour left wingers who level such criticisms, such as the beast of bolsover Dennis Skinner. Ghastly man! Alot of Tories are probably keeping mum as they agree with Ms. Hodge as I have indicated in a post.