On welfare chauvinism

I’ve been reading a bit about welfare chauvinism – the idea that non-citizens who live permanently (in the UK in this case) should be excluded from from state social benefits and services.  I’ve got a way to go, but was put on to it by my mucker-in-chief, Prof Alex Marsh.  One of the key points about it is that welfare chauvinism is not always the preserve of far right parties but also is accommodated by mainstream parties.  It also has a range of different dimensions, which are in flux. [I’m never party political on this blog but I am breaking that rule in what follows only in so far as what is said does not reflect the law or reality in any way, not that they care – so, there is also some important stuff about how the loony right is wrong]

It was in reading this literature that I came across a piece by Farage on his substack, which is an attack on the public sector equality duty in part.  It is also an attack on social housing, which, so he says, is subject to an ethnic minority lettings bias and “the ‘Homes fit for Heroes’ became homes for humanity”.  I think that is meant to be an attack, but I regard it as an achievement – the evidence is that at least some of the heroes who returned from the First World War were priced out of the council housing which was built.  Farage goes on to argue that local people have been unable to obtain an allocation of local social housing because (I think) the law does not prioritise them, but Black and Minority Ethnic households.  This is in the context of what he says is a two tier approach under which White citizens lose out.  It’s not the most coherent piece or argument, but it concludes on housing, in widely reported comments, that

• Under his ridiculous party, foreign nationals will not have any access to welfare
• Such nationals will (I think – it’s not entirely clear) have to leave social housing and find private rented accommodation within three months (otherwise they will be deported), and
• “Residency and preference requirements for social housing will be used to ensure that veterans and long-term local residents will be preferenced for social housing, with exceptions only for groups like domestic abuse survivors and care leavers.”

This is all frankly ludicrous stuff, and written in the context of a blog about “whiteness”, so we know what he means by these “foreign nationals”.  It is right to say that his focus is England.  But, given that this party is a national party, and is our second largest party, we need at least to recognise its potential salience for us.

I’ve said it before, and I will say it again – and will never tire of repeating it to whoever asks:

• allocation schemes can already give additional preference to veterans – Wales has a specific “pathway” for those leaving the armed forces; paras 3.162-73 of the statutory code of guidance on allocation deals with veterans; they are recognised as being in priority need (while we still have that concept).
• locals can be prioritised in allocation schemes – we had that discussion about local lettings schemes in relation to the Welsh language, and a lot of allocation schemes require some sort of residence in the area.  I went to Cardiff and NPT councils’ allocation schemes as exemplars, but could have chosen any of the 27 local authorities in Wales and would (I’d bet) have exactly the same outcomes): Cardiff Council, for example, gives a “higher priority” for applicants with a local connection with Cardiff; NPT put most applicants without a local connection but have a reasonable preference for an allocation in their “Bronze Band” (which is supposed to be for those with low or not housing need);
• Exceptions are already made in law for survivors of domestic abuse and care leavers to whom there is a corporate responsibility across local government.
• “Foreign nationals” is not a term which appears in law, and is underspecified (of course, in that substack).  That, at least, is true.  However, “persons from abroad” are ineligible for an allocation unless they are re-included in tightly drafted categories.  They are also made ineligible for homelessness assistance unless re-included again.  That includes all asylum seekers (see the previous discussion on this blog) and most non-EU immigrants; a vast number of EU citizens are excluded unless their pre-Brexit rights have been preserved; and EU citizens have always been excluded unless they fall within certain categories.  Further, immigration law requires private landlords to ensure that their tenants/occupiers have the right to rent so they must have the lawful right to be in the UK.  Even if they are re-included, allocation schemes are weighted against them (see point two above).

Now, we could certainly argue about this structural welfare chauvinism in relation to housing, and put it in historical perspective (housing as the “wobbly pillar” of the welfare state etc), but the key point being made is that the notion of housing need is not universal.  Certain of the most needy are already excluded from homelessness assistance and social housing allocations.  By all means have a debate, if that’s what floats your boat; but do so from a position of understanding the existing restrictions and not on the basis of some puffed up idiot seeking to make points which do not reflect the legal reality.