January 21, 2025 - 7:00am
Social housing sits right at the intersection of two of Britain’s thorniest political problems: mass immigration and the housing crisis. With millions of working citizens grappling with spiralling bills and mortgage rates, the question of who receives subsidised housing will only become more pressing.
Even without the immigration angle, it was only a matter of time before voters noticed that broad swathes of central London and other prime locations are currently used to house others at taxpayers’ expense. This happens while those taxpayers have to accept long commutes from the suburbs and grapple with the ever-rising cost of housing.
But there is no escaping the immigration dimension. According to the Office for National Statistics, almost one in five social households are headed by somebody born overseas; in London, this rises to 48%.
Tom Calver, Data Editor at the Times, said on Sunday that the eye-catching data “falls down” because most foreign-born social housing tenants are not new arrivals, but have in fact “been here for decades”. There is a problem with this line of thought, though. None of the migration sceptics highlighting the scarcity of social housing have made recent immigration part of their argument. If anything, it is they who have been pointing out that the current system ignores the long-term net cost of someone who moves here for work but, say, ends up in social housing.
The case for mass immigration is made in economic terms: that those who come here to work are net positives for the nation as a whole. But if someone ends up in social housing and costs the state, shuffling them out of the debit column because they’ve been here a while is just crooked accounting.
This is fertile territory for the Right. Historically, opposition to mass immigration has been strongest in so-called “left-behind” areas — which, somewhat ironically, have often experienced it least. Housing creates an obvious link between immigration and the material struggles of aspirational working-age voters in big cities and the South. No wonder Nigel Farage is now talking about it.
Progressives have spotted the danger, now that the social housing debate has broken into the mainstream. But they’re struggling to come up with a persuasive counter-argument. Most effective is perhaps the point, made by Professor Rob Ford, that the great majority of foreign-born people in social housing are British citizens, and therefore have the same entitlement to the state’s resources as anyone else.
Ford makes a more compelling case than Calver, but it still doesn’t stack up. An immigrant doesn’t stop being an immigrant upon receiving citizenship, and a British passport doesn’t retroactively justify the decision to give it to someone. If large numbers of arrivals end up in social housing, barring cases such as refugees, it is a total failure of immigration policy. Trying to avoid scrutiny because we’ve given those people citizenship will only focus attention on our very generous approach to handing it out.
Calver also makes the point that there isn’t a problem because the share of foreign-born social households is almost exactly in line with their share of the overall population, both in London and nationally. But this is baffling logic. Unlike the birthright citizenry, immigrants are supposed to have passed a selection process whereby they will be a net economic gain for the country. If the justification for mass immigration is the import of workers who will be a net benefit to Britain, their share of social housing tenants matching their overall population share represents an extraordinary failure.
We don’t import people to use the welfare system. Billions worldwide would benefit from being able to use the NHS, but only tens of millions have the right to do so. A welfare state can’t function as a universal dispensary attached to an angry and under-served national tax base. If the major parties don’t wake up to that, their oversight will only make voting for Reform UK and Farage — who have explicitly addressed this issue — more persuasive.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAs sad as this situation is for genuinely needy long-term British citizens, it seems equally disappointing that it’s taken so long for this obvious outcome to register with the general public.
It registered with the public long ago, unfortunately the FPTP system makes it incredibly difficult for anybody but the established parties to break through, as shown in 2015 (I think) when UKIP received 12% of the vote but only won a single MP out of 650
Click bait for the prejudiced.
Now there has been too much immigration and 14 years of Tory and Right wing dishonesty – wedded to cheap labour in many industries but happy to simultaneously blame the migrant worker. But Author opts not to mention that we have 8 million less homes than France for similar population and instead, as ever for the Right, looks to shuffle the blame onto immigrants. Who hasn’t built the homes and sold off the social housing stock? Who persisted with QE and asset price inflation pushing affordable home ownership further away from an entire generation?
One suspects the Right will also offer virtually zero on Policy front, much like this Head of Conservative Home has done. Suspect he was singing Bojo’s praises after 2019 GE win whilst Bojo further loosened the rules on visas as EU migration retreated. Much easier to stir rage than actually suggest practical resolutions isn’t it and maintaining the gig here on Unherd only requires the former. This Author is youngish but been writing here on Unherd for a few years now. Yet to see an Article from him where he outlines how he’d reduce reliance on imported labour in the Sectors that use it, or what he’d do now about the housing shortage. As he sort of admits many of the occupants aren’t leaving. As ever it’s the Right fuelling the problem in order to weaponise. Farage will do just that conveniently associating all the problems with illegal migration which is a fraction of the total Legal migration the Right allowed. Beyond the focus on illegal migration you won’t hear one practical Policy resolution to reduce legal or increase housing stock. It’s rage for the infantalised.
I agree we have a shortage of homes, both private and council, but that doesn’t distract from the argument in the article. In fact it makes it stronger, when in a time of housing shortages importing millions of foreigners who need social housing shows just how broken the immigration system is.
It’s not click bait or racist to believe that we shouldn’t be importing those who are a financial drain on society
The financial drain part is not so straight forward I think. There have been other cases where migrants were seen as ‘net negatives’ on paper and yet are also seen as beneficial to the economy by some.
One way this can be understood is that you can produce GDP growth by any activity, e.g. digging a hole and filling it back up. Another reason is that keeping wages down and demand high pushes up asset prices which is associated with a booming economy. And here is the thing: all of this allows both the public and private sector to borrow more and more money. Now, one could wonder if any of this makes any rational sense but that, I think, is really at the heart of the financial system itself.
I think his point is not to be click bait, or to stir up anti-immigration sentiment, but to see from a political point of view what the consequences are likely to be. As you rightly point out, the Conservatives did nothing to fix the problem and it worsened considerably on their watch. Labour can build all the homes they want (one can but hope they’re better at that than ‘growing the economy’) but unless they build them faster than people come in, the problem will worsen.
Housing is very high up the hierarchy of needs, in a cold country it’s only just behind water and food.
The author is therefore perfectly correct to identify this issue as one that will benefit Farage. The Tories have no credibility at all, and Labour are perceived as being even softer on immigration than the incompetent Conservative administration that preceded them, a perception their policies and the results thereof are unlikely to change.
Pressure comes from too few houses, and too many people. It takes time to build houses, even assuming everyone believes you will. The only thing you can do quickly is stop the increase in demand (people). The next election belongs to whoever does the most to stop the inflow of people. That, I think, is his point.
There are clearly multiple reasons for the housing crisis, but the fact they are multiple does not invalidate one of them.
Both things can be right at the same time.
Instead of comments on the Right, Left, Right, Left, Right, Left……(we’re you in the army?)… why not put in a few ideas and solutions? Or are you saying that the government has all of the solutions and we should just shut up and follow meekly?
Tom Calver is partly right that the UK has pivoted away from the sort immigration that produces in the stat that immigrants are overrepresented in the social housing data. In my borough a hamas official (a friend of corbyn) got a council home and then soon after did the right to buy. Is this sort of thing social housing is for? This should be the future: 1) at immigration selection stage we choose people with a lower probability of needing social housing (or all their rent paid by housing benefit). 2) it should only be for uk citizens. 3) the right to buy should only happen if you’ve been living there 15 years (yes rayner I’m looking at you)
“Even without the immigration angle, it was only a matter of time before voters noticed that broad swathes of central London and other prime locations are currently used to house others at taxpayers’ expense. This happens while those taxpayers have to accept long commutes from the suburbs and grapple with the ever-rising cost of housing.“
This has been the case for well over a decade now. I was a teacher in a North Kensington school, an area only the wealthy can afford to live in or those in social housing. Many of my colleagues had long commutes across London to get to the school surrounded by social housing estates. It is not racist to point out that at least 90% of the children there were from immigrant families just a fact.
Remember when politicians and journalists would robustly declare that the housing crisis had nothing to do with immigration? We were not to believe what we could see with our own eyes. It is this flagrant gaslighting that has driven many people to distrust politics and mainstream media.
This quote is becoming increasingly relevant:
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”― George Orwell, 1984
I used to think that Orwell’s 1984 was a warning to the world of totalitarianism. Now I am beginning to understand it was a warning for us, for England.
He projected his own experience into the book. His own political awareness along with his own self knowledge.
Watch the Starmer speech today. It’s extraordinary and scary.
The problem is that rhe political classes and civil service treat it, along with Animal Farm as training manuals rather than warnings.
It would be a fascinating to ask Starmer what he thinks of 1984.
Of course he would deflect. But I would love to know his true thoughts. It would reveal the man. Or reveal there is no natural human being there.
He sees it as a training manual of course.
With that, i wholeheartedly agree.
The idea that the defendant might’ve “walked free” had relevant issues been brought to light last summer is gaslighting of the worst lawyer-speak kind. “Those are the rules” he kept braying, without the slightest idea that the law is ultimately based upon public consent.
See how positive this platform can be when comments are made which relate to the issue in question, and without seeking to proselytise for a different issue.
In the USA, we just voted out those who would tell us not to believe what we were seeing with our own eyes and hearing with our own ears. Good riddance to the dystopian Biden Administration. A new day is dawning. Britain can be free again if it chooses to do so.
Our day will dawn too, and it can’t be another four years away. The way in which the Starmer bunch are now trying to cosy up to Trump is sickening – and i’m pretty sure Trump will deal with them accordingly, behind the smiles and handshakes.
Which brings me to the Grenfell issue which has been shamelessly and dishonestly spun as an indictment of the treatment of ethnic minorities in this country when in reality it shows the extent of their preferential treatment.
I worked in London for 15 years. There was no prospect ever of me bein able to buy or rent in zones 1 or 2 let alone in a location as prestigious as Grenfell.
It was also noteworthy that a huge % of the tenants were not in employment, so didn’t need to be in a nice posh area near where the work opportunities were. Those working in minimum wage jobs nearby were subsequently forced to commute in order to afford a property, rented either privately or through social housing.
It is rather like trying to spin the sinking Titanic as proletariat atrocity against the upper classes
There was a lot of subletting going on.
It was bad enough when Labour Health Secretary Frank Dobson, not noticeably under-remunerated, insisted on occupying a council flat in London so he could be “in close touch with my constituents”.
What a disgrace the Left are.
What a mess they leave behind.
Yet Unherd supports Starmer.
Why are you ignoring the Southport girl killer story Unherd? Because Starmer would be criticised.
You feeble rag.
The story of England. Mistakes, vile acts, spin, cover up. Mistakes, vile acts, spin, cover up. On a continuous loop. Unherd playing its part to perfection.
Was the Southport video-beheading-enthusiast girl killer’s family benefiting from social housing? I have no idea. We are not told.
Write about this Unherd. Write about what is going on today. Not just endless cover up after cover up after cover up.
Starmer lying in his press conference as I write., “I don’t intend to let any institution of state deflect from their failures”.
Yet no national inquiry on the Pakistani rape gangs. The cover-up for over 30 years shows all the institutions of state have done just that, failed, and then deflected any criticism away.
Unherd. Write about this.
It disgusts me the role the UK media have played in covering up everything dirty and corrupt. The lies. The deflection. The spin. The stories not told. The voices unheard.
Unherd is a deceitful rag. Fortunately there are comments allowed. Even more fortunately Unherd’s business model relies on comments. Turn them off, and subscribers will leave.
Do everyone a favour Unherd. Cancel all comments. And Unherd will never be heard of again.
So I think all of this is part of the broader housing crisis and perhaps even the entire economic situation in the West. Migration is just an area where the symptoms of the dysfunctional economy become apparent, especially in relation to housing.
Because asset values were pushed up for years by stimulus measures, housing became literally unaffordable for many people with normal jobs and wages who did not own a house on time. These people now also look at social housing since only this market was protected against the large inflationary pressure produced by the stimulus. However, the Ponzi situation seems to produce a perverse incentive to sort of maintain or even increase the scarcity as well.
You see similar problems in many larger European cities. For example, the waiting time in Amsterdam is now sometimes 18 years according to one article. Similar controversy with migrants haunted the Netherlands where, despite these waiting times, municipalities were tasked to provide housing to asylum seekers quickly. The rebuttal was that the numbers of asylum seekers were such that this did not significantly impact the waiting times for those who were already waiting for years. Still, if you’re working full time and you cannot afford to live anywhere at all – and this is increasingly common – it might not feel entirely fair. And it is not hard to see that this has political consequences.
And should have political consequences
The Starmer speech is interesting in the typical Starmer-horror-show way. He says law and order depends on the police and CPS. He then pauses and coughs and looks even more weird and uncertain than he normally does. The pause allowing everyone to remember that the Pakistani rape gangs were going about their business for over 30 years without a single prosecution.
The Left claimed there was a huge problem with housing, caused by Air BnB.
They hate people finding out what the real cause is.
Starmer is as stupid as you get.
“National renewal … is about turning us back toward ourselves…”
It’s just nonsense.
No wonder Unherd never reports anything Starmer says. They hide it. Just as the mainstream media did in USA to protect Biden.
“We don’t import people to use the welfare system.”
Really, Mr. Hill ? You’re arguing against yourself here having just made the case that in far too many cases we do. Quite correct that if the system were working as it’s been sold to us, there would be a lower proportion of immigrants using social housing. And you haven’t even touched on the unfunded pension liabilities this is all building up (for example when allowing dependent elderly relatives to settle in the UK).
Why do we continue to treat native British people as second class citizens ?
Your point is the same as his, but you seem to have missed the meaning of the quote, which is, “We don’t intentionally import people… etc..”
It is not a gift to Reform.
Labour and Conservatives have allowed the situation to arise. They have had years in Government to do something about it but clearly have no wish to do so, and could you plausibly believe them if they now had a Damascene conversion.
What this country needs is a party prepared to actually deal with the problems it faces
I am beginning to see that if I criticise Un*erd, the statement is taken out for inspection. If I am positive it comes back after 30 minutes but if negative there is a delay of several hours until interest has moved on. But, over and over again we see Ric*ha*d Li**lewo*d saying the same things – to the point of insincerity. Is this Un*red’s way of pretending to accept criticism of itself?
I’ve learnt that if you say feeble rag, useless media outlet, and also one other negative word in there, the comment goes into Unherd limbo for a few hours. Feeble rag by itself usually goes through.
Just like that. To be fair to Unherd they do let me criticise them and quite strongly.
Another thing they do to me a lot is post my comment but with no reply option and no down or upticking option. That’s annoying. It’s like posting an aborted comment.
I’m afraid some of these threads (a main reason for a subscription) are becoming a one-man Ric*ha*d Li**lewo*d show.
…in addition to these rather obvious issues, it is pretty certain that many of these households will be saving costs by manipulating apparent overall household income down to maximise access to social housing and other benefits…
…in order to remit money “home” to expand family landholdings and finance comfortable overseas dwellings to retire to. Although they will visit frequently for medical and dental care on the NHS…and to negotiate arranged marriages and the like…
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test.
Test
Test
Test
Not that we really have slums any more but there are places here I wouldn’t like to visit let alone live. I always wonder why people come here; they lack discrimination if they come for the money. Even a tent city in Jordan has doctors and some sort of schooling.
If the countries of origin are so poorly run I blame corruption, the UN, the WHO and, whoever the WEF are. We can’t keep blaming Bush and Blair while many will tell you Saddam kept the tribes apart, under control. The liberal Left ruined Africa, the Communists Russia and China and our politicians here back home.
Whoever “they” may be, I suspect they want a war. People rebuild after a war. This constant erosion is like rusty bodywork. It needs cutting out and the surrounding area treating and we send our mechanics to do media studies and origami subjects.
Prof Ford is being disingenuous and clutching at straws.