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

The vast majority of social housing provision is subsidising rent prices by the council paying a portion or all of the rent cost.
The rent is still being charged whether you agree with the concept or not, the council is subsidising the tenant in receipt of council benefits either by a portion or all of the cost, therefore making it cheaper or in some cases but probably less common, fully free.

Yep- I'm not wasting headspace on their announcements- it's all just distraction from the £5million elephant anyway.

Reform voters… still some single mum hate lurking in there.

No. They're not going to do anything except cost the UK taxpayer money and profit from Russia and money laundering.🙄

It's the Reform way.🤷‍♀️

That’s not what subsidised means. Subsidised means it’s cheaper because someone else is paying part of it and passing the discount onto the user.

This is not the case in social housing.

You can’t compare to market rent. That in no way reflects the cost of running the property.
If you’re outside of the capitalist model market rent is irrelevant.

Not sure what payments to landlords means- from who?

Baffling that a party pushing the importance of marriage is run by twice divorced Nigel Farage, once divorced Richard Tice, the single Zia Yusuf and Lee Anderson who has separated from his wife.

I remember when you had to be married to get on the housing list, if you were lucky you got a 2 bed flat and did not get a house unless you had kids of opposite sexes.
Unmarried mums were expected to stay living with parents until they could find a man to marry them or put the kid up for adoption....that was 'the good old days for boomers'.....

It doesn't mean that actually.
Subsidised means that the amount paid by users of the service doesn't cover the costs of providing them with that service, so the service would make a loss and be unsustainable without the subsidy.
Provided the rent a tenant pays covers the costs incurred in housing them, the landlord breaks even, no subsidy required. Market rent requires more than breaking even, as its based on a for profit model.
While the housing function in a particular local authority may require subsidy, this is due to the numbers of tenants not paying rent. A tenant who pays rent is not paying a subsidised rent. They are paying an amount that doesn't require profit to be made.
The biggest beneficiaries of housing related tax payer subsidies are private landlords.

As @TheFairyCaravan points out veterans are already in a much better position than many others. Further prioritisation isn't warranted. It's the right's version of virtue signalling.

I think you will find that they only want certain people to have children.

Part of a Reform agenda?

It’s below market rent, which by default makes it subsidised.
It’s often also largely in the form of payments to landlords, again subsidising housing costs.

Does 'British Born' mean also those wrong coloured (according to Reform ) 'British Borns'? I mean, some members have loudly decided it don't matter whevver you was born 'ere, you 'ent from 'ere. It must be a tricky time for them...

I think they've heard the PM talking about council houses, know its gone down well, so have decided to pretend it's their policy too. Their voters are the same people who bang on about single mums getting pregnant to get a council house, so the married couple thing is to keep them happy.
The no extra cost is just the latest example of saying any old rubbish they think people will like, safe in the knowledge they'll never be in a position to have to prove themselves.

it’s not subsidised. That’s what it costs to run and maintain social housing.

comparing it to a landlord with massive mortgages and a desire to make profit doesn’t mean the cheaper version is subsidised by someone.

What on earth are you talking about? You claimed social housing wasn’t subsidised.
“and its not bloody subsidised”
There’s no gotcha, you’re making up a whole load a random shit that isn’t relevant or wasn’t commented on by me.
I merely said of course social housing is subsidised, that’s the entire point of its existence.
Childcare is no business of mine, it’s you trying to make weird gotchas with your relentless childcare/cleaner nonsense that isn’t linked to anything I’ve said.

Of course they won't. They'll do fuck all, just like at the moment. They are saying what they think people want to hear in order to get voted in, so they can cosy up to Trump and his shareholders and receive bribes from the rich to implement laws that will benefit only them.

I did not know this @TheFairyCaravan

There’s something going on with Farage. Didn’t he have an operation recently? Perhaps he is still recovering. Their difficulty is that Reform is still a one man show. It’s game over for them if Farage quits.

Personally I agree with the policy to prioritise veterans. Not many legal jobs you go to accepting that you might not come home, or come home with serious physical disability. Not many jobs I'd less like my child to sign up for as a mother. I agree all those other occupations are admirable/dangerous too though.

DH is a veteran, The military covenant is already in place so, theoretically, they take priority on the social housing list. I disagree with it as a general rule.

When you leave the forces, after a full career, (I’m not sure when it kicks in) you get a tax free, lump sum of three times your annual pension. Whenever they attend housing briefs in their final years they’re told they should be thinking about using that rather than running straight to the council.

I know one family, who lived in service families accommodation for his whole career but didn’t save a penny. Instead they had 12 children. When it came to him leaving they couldn’t get a mortgage, obviously, she didn’t work, so they went to the council. They did get given a 6 bed house, not in the area she wanted, but she had no choice to take it. It was that or be made homeless. He has a very low paying job, now, she still doesn’t work, but they want to move back “home” to where their parents live. They can’t afford a private rent or a mortgage so he’s been to the new council expecting them to use the military covenant, again, and push him up the list. Every single week he moans he hasn’t been given another house and it’s not fair. It literally boils my blood. Meanwhile he was given around £45k around 3yrs ago which they pissed up the wall.

So many people think that veterans are chucked out of the military on their last day, completely penniless without any help at all but it’s really not like that.

Perhaps childcare should double in costs so child minders can afford to buy a good property.

See how bringing up subsidies was a gotcha But not in the direction you thought it would be @Midnightmoonface

I’m in my late 60s and when I was a child many people, especially widowed women, took in lodgers. Paid the bills, people had a cooked meal to come home too, and was company for all.
Now people often live alone. One space, one person.
I was in a smallish Wiltshire town today, which had a noticeable amount of above shop property empty. Imagine is there was some encouragement to make this housing.
There used to be police houses, nurses homes, hotel staff living in….
there world wouldn’t be so difficult to change.

No I don’t have a cleaner. What’s your point? Are you going to try to claim it’s some moral failing that I won’t hire a cleaner so they can buy a house?

Do you have a cleaner? do you pay her enough so that she can buy her own property