{"id":524,"date":"2026-06-26T14:40:09","date_gmt":"2026-06-26T13:40:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/housing-rights.info\/news\/?p=524"},"modified":"2026-07-27T15:10:31","modified_gmt":"2026-07-27T14:10:31","slug":"handling-the-media-onslaught-on-housing-and-migration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/housing-rights.info\/news\/handling-the-media-onslaught-on-housing-and-migration\/","title":{"rendered":"Handling the media onslaught on housing and migration \u2014 June 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

After weeks of anti-migrant rhetoric and racist attacks in Belfast and elsewhere, here is a summary of news and hostile commentary on housing and migration, and responses to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Housing and community agencies respond to the Belfast attacks<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Hundreds of people were made homeless by the fires and riots in Belfast, with 29 households assisted<\/a> by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Imix<\/em> news service<\/a> provided regular updates with links to corporate media and local news sources, especially in their issue of 9-10 June<\/a>. In openDemocracy<\/em>, Nicola Browne described<\/a> solidarity among ordinary Belfast residents to help those affected. A local group, the Anaka Collective<\/a>, described how it is supporting people affected by the attacks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CIH Northern Ireland put out a statement<\/a> on the violence, as did JCWI<\/a>. PAIH (Positive Action in Housing) made a statement<\/a> about violence in Glasgow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Belfast riots fuelled by publicly available lists of multi-occupied homes<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Guardian<\/em> reported<\/a> that Belfast rioters were targeting houses in multiple-occupation (HMOs) as likely places where migrants were living, using the public HMO register.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HOPE not Hate has put out the following call to local authorities in the rest of the UK, asking them to create identity checks before people can access their HMO registers:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

The following is some information about public HMO registers, in the light of recent riots and disturbances. Please pass this along to housing officers and information governance officers as appropriate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As you will be aware, local authorities have a duty under the Housing Act 2004, Section 232 to maintain an up-to-date register of properties within its jurisdiction that have been granted House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licences, and ensure that that list is accessible to the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We have evidence to suggest that, during recent unrest, there have been incidences of individuals sharing details of properties taken from HMO registers. This has then been used to build lists of places to target as suspected accommodation for people seeking asylum. This follows a pattern we have seen within the organised far right, namely a move from focusing on asylum hotels to targeting HMOs, on the (mis)understanding that \u2018HMO\u2019 is synonymous with dispersal asylum accommodation. As such, we believe that any property that has an HMO licence, or indeed that appears visually similar to HMO-licenced properties, may be at greater risk. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We wanted to make local authorities aware of this trend and encourage those who maintain their public register in an online format to consider moving to a different format. This could mean, for example, implementing a procedure whereby those wanting to access the register must apply by sharing their full identifying details. Applicants would then be able to access the list at an in-person meeting. Section 232 of the Housing Act 2004 simply states that \u201cthe register must be available for public inspection and persons may take copies thereof (on payment of a fee).\u201d We believe that this duty would be satisfied by a system that allows individuals to view the register in person, having made a note of their details.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please be aware that, where the details included in the public register were previously available in an online format but have since been taken down, they may still be accessible using tools like the Wayback Machine, which enables users to view previous versions of webpages. If your authority deems this an ongoing risk, you may wish to consult with people with relevant IT knowledge and contact providers, including the Wayback Machine, with a takedown request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you would like further information about this, please contact HOPE not hate\u2019s Community Tensions Researcher Mary Atkinson on mary.a@hopenothate.org.uk<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Farage promises to \u201cevict foreign nationals from council housing\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A Daily Telegraph <\/em>headline<\/a> heralded an attack on all non-UK nationals living in social housing. A Reform government would give such households three months\u2019 notice to find alternative accommodation, with those failing to do so being deported.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was no acknowledgement of the enormous obstacles to carrying it out. Housing associations and many local authorities could refuse to implement it. The costs of evictions and tenancy turnover \u2013 especially in London where huge numbers could be affected \u2013 would be prohibitive. The end result might well be a larger housing benefit bill if households were forced to move into private lettings, even if the private sector could meet the additional demand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CIH made an immediate response<\/a>, criticising the proposal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adding to the attacks, the Daily Express <\/em>had a related story<\/a> that Reform would remove welfare rights from all foreign nationals at three months\u2019 notice. This would eventually extend to those holding EU settled status, with the party estimating savings of \u201cup to \u00a310 billion a year on universal credit alone.\u201d The move would conflict with the legally binding Brexit agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Monday 25 May, the Express<\/em> claimed<\/a> that \u201calmost half of new homes go to migrants.\u201d This was based on an assessment of recent new housebuilding numbers compared with arrivals of new migrants. On the BBC<\/em>, the programme More or Less<\/em> debunked the claim<\/a>. The numbers had been crunched by the Conservative Party, who failed to point out that, by the same logic, the numbers were far worse under the previous government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Migration is falling \u2013 is that good news?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Yorkshire Bylines<\/em><\/a> asked a question that gets to the heart of the current political moment: why, given that net migration has fallen to its lowest level in over a decade, has the fury only intensified? The piece draws a clear line from Brexit’s normalisation of dehumanising language to the current climate, and notes that some of the most hostile responses to the government’s statistics were directed at Diane Abbott and David Lammy specifically, using openly racist language. The far-right cannot be appeased by numbers, the piece argues, because the numbers were never really the point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism asked<\/a>, \u201cUK net migration is at its lowest in ten years \u2013 so why is the country fixated on it?\u201d In part it\u2019s because most voters don\u2019t believe the statistics. A study<\/a> published by the thinktank British Future found most voters believe net migration is still rising. Also, if high immigration is no longer an issue, attention may turn to migrants\u2019 effects on the housing market and related questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

James Bowes, who forecasts that UK net migration will fall to zero, repeated his arguments<\/a> in UnHerd. <\/em>As a result of falling numbers, Labour MPs will \u201curge ministers to scrap migration reforms\u201d, said The Independent<\/em><\/a>. MPs argue that, since net migration is set to drop to its lowest level since Covid, Shabana Mahmood\u2019s pending changes \u2013 for example on \u201cearned settlement\u201d \u2013 should be abandoned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Immigration to the UK: Escaping the doom loop<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In a new report<\/a>, Lauren Gilbert and Jonathan Portes argue that \u201cwhoever is in charge, Labour needs a new immigration strategy.\u201d Evidence that net migration has almost halved won\u2019t help the government regain trust, they say.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis is the migration doom loop,\u201d says the report. The government responds to political pressure by promising to reduce numbers. The easiest reductions come from routes that are economically useful and administratively controllable: students, skilled workers, dependants, care workers. The fiscal and labour market costs then show up elsewhere, in weaker public services, lower tax revenues and more pressure on universities and care. Meanwhile, the political focus on immigration policy simply raises its salience. And in the UK\u2019s current media climate, few believe that government policies achieve anything. Dissatisfaction rises, and the right says the problem is still immigration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The report argues for dropping the \u201cearned settlement\u201d proposals because of the vast uncertainty they will create, having a proper strategy for having sufficient social care workers, having a strategy for students, speeding up asylum decisions and other administrative measures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On housing, the report says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cRestricting migration does not materially increase housing supply, resolve funding constraints in social care, or raise capital investment. Instead, it reduces labour supply and fiscal capacity, making these problems harder to address.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Lauren Gilbert also took a dive into the evidence<\/a> on whether migration drives up house prices. She concludes that they do (at least in the US), but that the issue is complicated because migrants are also needed to build new homes (a quarter of US construction workers are migrants). In any case, price rises due to other factors are far more significant than the small impact of extra migration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Britain has crushed immigration, and harmed itself \u2013 \u201cNobody seems to have noticed\u201d<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps surprisingly, The Economist <\/em>joined the calls<\/a> for more enlightened immigration policies. \u201cIn a few years Britain has gone from a remarkably open country to a remarkably closed one,\u201d it argues. \u201cA considerable achievement, though not a commendable one. Under public pressure, successive governments have slashed every kind of immigration that they can.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Housing<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Successive governments have succeeded in making Britain less attractive to immigrants, despite the fact that they quickly contribute to the economy (see chart). Unfortunately, The Economist <\/em>says, \u201cthey may also have made the immigrants who arrive less attractive to Britons,\u201d as the number of migrant workers falls as a proportion of the total. The proposed changes to settlement and citizenship could make those who still arrive for work less successful, and thus less appealing. \u201cNumbers aren\u2019t everything.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Local media need to do better on immigration reporting<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism investigated<\/a> a story published by Reach’s<\/em> regional outlets. Reach\u2019s<\/em> central data team produced an interactive map, with accompanying text, based on migration data published by the Office for National Statistics. The way this was then published by its various regional sites offers a stark insight into the conflicting ways the media can report the same information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reach<\/em>-owned titles such as Surrey Live <\/em>published the same data<\/a> with considerably different framing, including misleading headlines that confused Ukrainian refugees with asylum seekers, generating comment sections filled with dehumanising language. Jenni Regan of Imix<\/em> commented: \u201cThe human cost of that clickbait doesn\u2019t appear in anyone\u2019s analytics.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Building a bigger us: How to talk about homes and immigration<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

FrameWorks UK, in partnership with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Nationwide Foundation, have developed the evidence base<\/a> on how to win hearts and minds for changes to the housing system. The research explored how the public think about homes and immigration \u2013 and how communicators who are pushing for more homes can best meet these communications challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A toolkit<\/a> has guidance on handling discussions about the impact on housing demand of migration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The JRF\u2019s Natalie Tate has written about this<\/a> and there is a CIH member event<\/a> on Monday 13 July.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other news on political debates<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n