Hodge doesn't think we should send them back, but their homes shouldn't be that nice

cleanbluesky · 20 May 2007 at 13:01

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6673911.stm

The Industry Minister Margaret Hodge has said UK families should be given priority over immigrants when it comes to receiving council housing.

The cynic in me thinks that she doesn't actually care, but are well aware that the BNP could take her seat with potential ease

cleanbluesky · 20 May 2007 at 17:49

RDM said:
As the BNP made no real gains in the locals and have not really come close to gaining a seat in the Commons I really don't think they are too much of a worry. However a stronger stance on immigration may help her fight off a conservative candidate saying the right things.

Her constituency is Barking and Dagenham, a place where the last election saw the BNP win each of the 13 odd seats they fielded.

cleanbluesky · 20 May 2007 at 17:55

starscream said:
I would prefer a system that rather than prioritise who has access to housing, made decent housing available to everyone that needed it.

Wahaha ha ha ha ha *cough* *cough*

Perhaps if it wasn't all being sold off at hugely discounted rates, it wouldn't be such a problem.

Or, perhaps if we didn't have so many immigrants. Oh, and you underestimate the problem, some areas in London have something like 10% population emergency housing needs.

cleanbluesky · 20 May 2007 at 17:56

RDM said:
Any idea what the result was like on the last general election? As far as I am aware the BNP have never been close to winning a seat in the House of Commons and I don't see that changing in the near future.

IIRC the BNP candidate was no-where near winning a seat in the HoC, but their support has grown immeasurably since then because up until they won 13 they had only minimal support

cleanbluesky · 20 May 2007 at 18:26

starscream said:
So who should get priority over a third generation immigrant whos whole family live in an area, and have 3 generations of contributing to that economy, verses a native Brit from a different part of the country who has just moved down.

3 generations of tax versus an entire lineage of tax?

cleanbluesky · 20 May 2007 at 18:35

starscream said:
Do you seriously believe that peoples ability to get housing should be based on the conduct on their ancestors?

What about if they have a history of unemployment going back 10 generations?

No, I didn't suggest that ability or history of the individual paying tax should contribute to social housing eligibility either...

In fact, I don't agree with the idea, becasue immigration and social integration need to be addressed, not housing/nationality quota

cleanbluesky · 20 May 2007 at 18:41

starscream said:
Would you also support similar tests for people who are currently living and working in places like Iraq?

If they're working, surely they can afford their own rent?

Are you under the mistaken impression that foreigners get treated like natives in the middle east?

cleanbluesky · 20 May 2007 at 19:26

starscream said:
Isn't your argument that immigration and integration need to be addressed socially, rather than simply housing?

I just don't think that the medium of housing should be used to address them. Let me state this - I think Hodge is a self-important airbag who will remain unpopular no-matter what she says

And no, I don't think foreigners get treated like natives in the ME, with the possibly exception of Iraq where they both seem to getting shot at and blown up

Then why should it be any different over here?

cleanbluesky · 20 May 2007 at 19:55

starscream said:
Because I would like to think that the UK treats people equally by an established moral standard, not because of the way that citizens are treated abroad. You are very capable of a reasoned debate, and I don't think you really believe that people living abroad are responsible for the conduct of others in their home country or should be treated as such.

I think that talk of moral standard is more about the ego of the orator rather than practical concerns, there will be no Ultimate Consequence should we adopt a different tactic, nor is there anything enduring about a sense of values - so adopt that which works . Politically we tend to take care of our own, particularly when we are already strained to do so properly

cleanbluesky · 21 May 2007 at 15:30

Van_Dammesque said:
ANYWAY WHAT THE HELL IS A ETHNIC MINORITY TASKFORCE?!!!?!?!?!?

Black ops?

cleanbluesky · 21 May 2007 at 15:31

dirtydog said:
Keith Vaz is surely the one who is inviting division by his policy of giving housing to immigrants in preference to natives, no? I find Keith Vaz offensive.

Keith Vaz is looking out for his own

cleanbluesky · 21 May 2007 at 15:49

chimaera said:
For example why should a 16yr old girl from barking who gets pregnant so she can get a free house and benefits get treated better than a proper asylum seeker who is leaving somewhere like darfur to find a better home for his family and work ten times harder than the little **** and her offspring.

****??? The word is a little hateful isn't it?

Why should either be more deserving of housing?

cleanbluesky · 21 May 2007 at 15:53

dirtydog said:
People like Vaz would have a field day.

Probably reason enough to start something like that

cleanbluesky · 21 May 2007 at 15:56

platypus said:
Since white people are supposed to be the majority, they don't need a task force.

I don't think the 'task force' idea has anything to do with minority vs majority, nor do I think that minority status automatically represents a specific NEED for anything

If I am wrong, where is the "ginger taskforce" etc. etc. ad nauseum

cleanbluesky · 21 May 2007 at 16:10

chimaera said:
I can't really comment if either of then deserve a house more than the other, however i would say that if someone is fleeing genocide then they have a better case than some knocked up 16 yr old who doesn't get along with her family.

I don't think the fact that someone is 'fleeing' anything entitles them to more than another person, who has equally little resources. It also assumes that the '****' has no problems of her own except for the addition you made of 'not getting along with her family'... I suspect that you wouldn't construct some abuse into her tale given that I think you are looking to make a story to fit your point.

If someone is fleeing genocide, surely they would be happy with a tent or a place in a refuge?

cleanbluesky · 21 May 2007 at 16:10

dirtydog said:
Can I just point out (again I think) that Hodge is referring to economic immigrants, not asylum seekers.

asylum seekers are housed under a different system so she is pretty certainly talking about economic migrants

cleanbluesky · 21 May 2007 at 16:20

chimaera said:
Also I didn't realise it was economic migrants, was basing my opinions on what i heard on BBC breakfast news not the quoted article. But again using CBS's example, if the daughter of an economic migrant gets abused then she shouldn't be told no because she's not British born and raised.

Abusees are given priority status anyway.

I'm not supporting either arguement really, just saying its a bit more complicated than UK / Non-UK, no matter how crap our immigration policy is there's no need to resort to blatant xenophobia.

A few posts ago I could have sworn that you were convinced that a refugee should get status over *****.

I agree with you on xenophobia, we need to take an always rational response to sorting this situation out. I liken Hodge's response to a neurosis, adopting a behaviour that would become problematic simply becasue you are unwilling to deal with the real issue - that of immigration, NOT housing alone.

cleanbluesky · 21 May 2007 at 16:22

platypus said:
Well my first comment was meant to be a sarcastic one, slap on my wrists for trying sarcasm.

You're right though, I realise its not about representing a Need, but it is often seen that way, in this case particularly a need seems to have been defined for black people to be treated as equally as white people.

Yes, but presenting the idea that blacks are somehow needy is not only racist (not saying you are racist) and prejudiced but it is used as a reason to discriminate in favour of blacks.

cleanbluesky · 21 May 2007 at 20:03

dirtydog said:
What you describe is akin to a workhouse then. A policy which I support incidentally.

Do you walk around with a stovepipe hat, condemning the working-classes of the day for their habit of gin consumption?

cleanbluesky · 22 May 2007 at 18:25

dirtydog said:
People who have kids when they can't afford to support them, and then live for years on benefits without a job, are not working class.

Wasn't I clear, I was comparing your attitudes to those of a 19th century industrialist - complete with stovepipe hat, bushy beard and exaggerated sideburns...

They also advocated workhouses, although surprisingly the practice has been abandoned due to increasing unpopularity with those who used workhouses.

Also, I seem to remember that you have been on benefits at some point. What is the difference between someone who "can't" find a job, and someone who "wont" find a job and how can we distinguish between the two (without kicking back the clock to the 19th century and re-introducing workhouses)