AIBU to question Reform's plan to prioritise married couples for social housing?

Is Social Housing is a Council rather than Westminster thing in England? It is in NI.

I don’t think Reform’s proposal is workable and I don’t support Reform, BUT at least they are having a discussion about who should benefit from social housing and how it should be managed. That conversation is not on the agenda at all for Labour. By way of example, I know a Ukrainian woman in her late 20s who has been living in the UK with refugee status. She is smart, educated and has a job here and a home in Ukraine. Her husband has a job with the Ukrainian government and she has financial support. She has a council flat in my home city. When I was her age I paid for a flat and lived in flatshares, as many other young people living in England. I don’t think she should have been given priority housing when she can work and pay rent like everyone else at that stage of life. This should be revisited.

If this thread shows anything, it’s that yet another Reform policy has been thrown out without sufficient consideration and falls apart as soon as the details are queried. This applies to pretty much every policy they announce - sounds superficially simple and then they very quickly get into a complete mess trying to explain how it will work. I’m not sure if they’re incapable of producing workable policies, or whether they just need to spend a bit more time on them. Either way, as a taster of a Reform government it’s absolutely terrifying.

Ever, fo the last time, if someone is settled - has EUSS (formerly EEA PR and EEA FM PR - I am assuming that's what you meant by law under EU law... ) or ILR, their child born in uk will have automatic citizenship in most cases. Parents do not need to be British citizens by birth or naturalisation.
The legislation and HO pages could not be clearer.

Ooh, could we use it to banish that arsehole, Stephen Tommy Yaxley John Lennon Robinson?

He seems a prime candidate.
Violent criminal ✅️
Dual nationality✅️
Owes loads in tax✅️
Costs the UK taxpayer loads✅️
Lives outside the UK✅️
Is a traitor in Putin's pocket ✅️

What baby? Do you mean If the baby has a parent who is British through citizenship then they are also a British citizen? They are yes. Permission to stay indefinitely (which was a law under the EU law) yes.

On the whole though, if a couple come to England on a visa and chose not to take on British citizenship. Then no their child would not be a British citizen.

Are you talking about baby's right to british citizenship or somethimg else?

You either need to have a parent who is British or be nationalised. I believe this costs a few thousand pounds. It’s not about belonging, it’s about the definition of any heritage or citizenship.

Both Rishi Sunaks parents were British. So of course he is! Well his dad definitely is, I’m not 100% on his mum.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'in the eyes of the law it doesn't'. The criteria for naturalisation or registration of a child born in the UK are very clearly defined. The question is whether heritage and citizenship should be conflated. Populists like Reform and others across Europe argue it should. However, heritage is terribly difficult to define and a very slippery slope in itself. Anything pertaining to identity is difficult to define along hard criteria. Using your own example, I also don't think you can easily exclude kids who were born and raised in a country, attended the local schools and been a part of the community for their whole lives purely because their parents were born elsewhere. Would you argue for instance that former PM Rishi Sunak is not British?

I completely agree with you but this narrative of you are born here or you’ve lived here long enough makes you British. In the eyes of the law it doesn’t. It shouldn’t either. I can’t go and live in another country, marry an English person, have a child and give them that countries heritage. I’d be laughed at.

The problem with Reform's proposal is that it almost invalidates naturalisation and creates issues for British people born abroad. Having tiered citizenships is a very dangerous and slippery slope. One set of rights for all citizens is what's needed- by all means make acquiring citizenship stricter going forward so that new arrivals can decide whether or not the UK is a good place to settle, but don't discriminate according to criteria no one can influence because it's a situation they inherited or they made a decision to settle here decades ago.

It has been like that for anyone born past easrly 80s. I don't know your friend's circumstances but I was just correcting your incorrect statement that one parent must be British citizens. If child is born in UK to parents who are settled, so irl, euss, but not citizens, the child can absolutely have British citizenship automatically in most cases. It's different for the ones born outside of UK.
Imigrants are usually aware of the rules and rights they have so no, I didn't even have to go to look it up just for this thread...

I will go and tell my friend to ignore what she’s been told. Not worry about nationalisation. Someone on mumsnet has looked into it and she’s British already! Thank you.

You can always check HO website ....

Settlement does not count, it will give you rights but you would still need to be nationalised to be British. Thats how I understand it. My friend is going through it now and Farage is a very big reason for it.

It can also just be settlement. ILR, EUSS and couple of others. None of the parents have to have UK citizenship

It’s not really that simple. To be British you need one parent to be British or nationalised. So one parent can be from anywhere in the world and someone could also be born anywhere in the world.

And on the street according to some if she hasnt reproduced.
Blessed be the fruit

Well i remember the Tories saying ppl shouldnt have kids if they cant afford them.

But then whine and moan now the reckoning has to be paid.
A womans place is in the wrong!!

Saw Laila Cunningham on TV trying to defend this policy and getting in a real mess. She didn’t seem to know exactly what the policy was, or how it would work. It’s like everything that Reform puts out: sounds superficially appealing and then completely falls apart as soon as anyone queries the details. God help us if they ever get near government.

It’s impractical and not grounded in reality, like most Reform policy ...

People who are homeless, living in unsuitable housing, or needing to move because of disability, illness or hardship receive priority currently, and that is a common sense approach that’s as cost effective as it can be for the taxpayer.

If a fixed percentage of all social homes were reserved for British-born workers under 35 and married couples, many high-need households would face longer waits for housing, increasing pressure on other public services, cost more for the taxpayer, and we’d see more street homelessness too probably.

Unless of course Reform would be embarking on a huge social house building programme in parallel …

Even if they got in and pushed it through, it would require major changes to the law and would be vulnerable to legal challenge.

Veterans, domestic abuse victims and care leavers are already prioritised where I am, so that’s not a change. It’s just framing to make their suggestion sound more acceptable.

Thousands of children are born in other countries to British parents and thousands are born here (so born in Britain), who are children of immigrants (most of whom are here legally BTW), so by your logic children of immigrants are entitled to SH but not children of British parents. You've kinda shot yourself in the foot with that statement haven't you?