Page 13 | AIBU to question Reform's plan to prioritise married couples for social housing?

QueenSophia · 2026-08-24T13:01:27+00:00

Reform have proposed to prioritise social housing for various groups : 'Rules would be changed to reserve at least half of all social homes in England for British-born workers aged under 35, with prioritisation also given to married couples, veterans, victims of domestic violence and care leavers.' I agree with DV victims, those with children, care leavers : veterans are also at high risk of homelessness. But why prioritise married couples over single people? I'm not convinced that's fair. I assume it's to encourage marriage which is a good aim but I'm not convinced if this is the right decision.

T1mTum · 24/08/2026 16:41

They’ve also said they’d bring back right to buy of the little social housing stock we have. They’re are absolutely useless.

Original poster

QueenSophia · 24/08/2026 16:41

MrsTerryPratchett · 24/08/2026 15:09

veterans are also at high risk of homelessness

They aren't. Everyone extrapolates from US data and philosophy and runs with it. Even the US has mostly put into place measures for dealing with their issue. If you correct for sex and age, veterans aren't more likely to be homeless in the UK.

As for prioritising married couples, as someone who has worked in social housing, fuck that. Fuck that all the way.

DV yes. But also single men. Because the way you stop a lot of DV is to house hobosexual violent men. So they don't glom onto single mums for housing.

Thanks,, this is important info. I hadn't realised this about veterans. If they are not more likely to be homeless then I don't think they should be prioritised. I agree US data can also confuse things.
Good point also re violent men trying to get houses through single women with kids.

OP posts:

BlueDillieDillie · 24/08/2026 16:41

I take this as an opening bid. At least they have said something that might improve the way of life for working people not the benefit claiming experts.
It will have to be modified in the two years before the next Gen Election.
The final plan that goes into their manifesto will be so different it is pointless getting in a froth about it now.

Midnightmoonface · 24/08/2026 16:38

Mountainpika · 24/08/2026 14:55

What about unmarried couples? Or doesn't Reform count them as equal to married couples?

Why would the state recognise a relationship when the couple have chosen to leave the state out of their relationship by not marrying or entering into a civil partnership?

Original poster

QueenSophia · 24/08/2026 16:38

T1mTum · 24/08/2026 16:13

So they’re only going to prioritise married couples not unmarried couples. That's outrageous. Who are they to dictate what people do?

Show quote history

I wonder also where civil partnerships fit in.

OP posts:

Original poster

QueenSophia · 24/08/2026 16:36

Maddy70 · 24/08/2026 16:26

Why veterans ? They have big forces pensions

Yes, I'd like to know more about this. Maybe veterans should be prioritised but I'm not fully convinced.

Probably Reform is trying to motivate people to join the army?

OP posts:

Original poster

QueenSophia · 24/08/2026 16:35

Meadowfinch · 24/08/2026 15:36

Social housing provision already prioritises children, so no change there.

I suppose married couples, on average, stay together longer, so less work when houses are allocated to them, which also creates more stable communities. It encourages marriage which is supposed to create a better environment for children. Maybe not such a daft idea.

As a single mum and product of an abusive father who was married to my mother, I rejected that life model decades ago and have raised a polite decent, well educated son in a house I bought by myself with no help from anyone.

But I guess policy needs to be based on statistics rather than anecdotes.

Show quote history

Yes, I can see reasons to do it but I still feel uncomfortable. I wholly believe that children should be prioritised and care leavers, but I'm not sure being married should mean people should wait shorter. Unsure re veterans either if, as pp said, they are not actually at more risk overall.

OP posts:

aliasfrog · 24/08/2026 16:27

JenniferBooth · 24/08/2026 16:20

Or single women without kids.

Show quote history

Quite. They likely hate single women without kids much more than they do single women with kids.

Maddy70 · 24/08/2026 16:26

Why veterans ? They have big forces pensions

JenniferBooth · 24/08/2026 16:20

aliasfrog · 24/08/2026 16:18

Obviously it's because they hate women, yet again. The quiet part they won't say is that they don't want single mothers to be housed in social housing. Anyone who thinks reform will be any good for women is delusional.

Or single women without kids.

aliasfrog · 24/08/2026 16:18

Obviously it's because they hate women, yet again. The quiet part they won't say is that they don't want single mothers to be housed in social housing. Anyone who thinks reform will be any good for women is delusional.

Witchergeralt · 24/08/2026 16:13

IMHO Reform are in gaga land. Would you believe a word Farage or Tice said after they're both under investigation by parliamentary standards? They seem to think there actually are houses to allocate in the first place!

T1mTum · 24/08/2026 16:13

Meadowfinch · 24/08/2026 15:36

Social housing provision already prioritises children, so no change there.

I suppose married couples, on average, stay together longer, so less work when houses are allocated to them, which also creates more stable communities. It encourages marriage which is supposed to create a better environment for children. Maybe not such a daft idea.

As a single mum and product of an abusive father who was married to my mother, I rejected that life model decades ago and have raised a polite decent, well educated son in a house I bought by myself with no help from anyone.

But I guess policy needs to be based on statistics rather than anecdotes.

Show quote history

So they’re only going to prioritise married couples not unmarried couples. That's outrageous. Who are they to dictate what people do?

Mountainpika · 24/08/2026 16:08

Backedoffhackedoff · 24/08/2026 14:57

No because they’re pretend / wannabe MAGa Jesus loves married people don’t live in sin types

Show quote history

Now why doesn't that surprise me,

dustabsorber · 24/08/2026 16:07

Perhaps they want to sell off the social housing and need tenants who could afford to buy

Mycatisreal · 24/08/2026 16:02

BlueSlate · 24/08/2026 14:11

I'm not convinced that's fair

Well of course not. It's Reform. They're very good at taking an issue of public interest (uncontrolled undocumented illegally arriving migrants; high welfare bill; lack of social housing; youth unemployment) winding people up with absurd claims and then proposing 'policies' that are largely unworkable and 'unfair'.

YABU for expecting any different.

Yep. Just the usual populist sound bites. They have no real policies just goady ramblings. Take no notice.

friedaklein · 24/08/2026 15:42

Dweetfidilove · 24/08/2026 15:17

Statistically, British Asians sit at the top of the marriage pole, so this may cause a bigger problem than the one he's pretending to fix, no 🤔.

Mixed and black ethnic groups also have the highest reported rates of domestic violence, so again...

Is there a large number of homeless veterans and care leavers or is that a myth?

Either way, I'm sure his supporters will be okay with him 'giving away more of their homes'. Excellent 'will never happen' housing policy 👏🏾.

That would be fun. All the decently married British Asians getting social housing.
But probably they will find a way to exclude them. Housing only for people tracing their last 3 generations in the UK, maybe.

Meadowfinch · 24/08/2026 15:36

T1mTum · 24/08/2026 14:42

It’s madness as it just encourages people to have children.

Social housing provision already prioritises children, so no change there.

I suppose married couples, on average, stay together longer, so less work when houses are allocated to them, which also creates more stable communities. It encourages marriage which is supposed to create a better environment for children. Maybe not such a daft idea.

As a single mum and product of an abusive father who was married to my mother, I rejected that life model decades ago and have raised a polite decent, well educated son in a house I bought by myself with no help from anyone.

But I guess policy needs to be based on statistics rather than anecdotes.

JenniferBooth · 24/08/2026 15:36

They think a woman should be barefoot and pregnant. They will be interfering with free contraception next........id lay money on it

P00hsticks · 24/08/2026 15:35

TopPocketFind · 24/08/2026 15:14

You are right, please accept my apologies. We all believe in Tice's 5 million money trees 💰

Show quote history

Well we know where one of them is, don't we ?

Original poster

QueenSophia · 24/08/2026 15:31

ForPlumReader · 24/08/2026 14:54

As with everything from Reform it's bonkers. OP, I'm confused why you would like think encouraging marriage is necessarily a good thing?

I think it's better to be committed officially to your partner if possible. Otoh I can think of several understandable situations where couples might prefer not to marry or to postpone marriage..and as pp says, it might also encourage unhappy/unsuited couples to stay together, although at least they have said they'll prioritise DV victims.

Not to mention the fact that some couples might have civil partnerships rather than marriage, so be officially committed but it seems Reform wouldn't count this.

OP posts:

JenniferBooth · 24/08/2026 15:28

mrsneville · 24/08/2026 14:57

I'd give up trying to expect logic or reasoning from Reform.

They're trying to protect conservative values of man and wife, family unit etc. It's just a way to try and reinforce traditional gender roles.

And probably their cack handed idea of trying to get the birth rate up

JenniferBooth · 24/08/2026 15:26

T1mTum · 24/08/2026 14:42

It’s madness as it just encourages people to have children.

Im childfree by choice Now if id had kids it would have been somewhere between the 1990s and 2010 when i was prime child bearing age and there were more houses available. so likely would have got out of here and got a house with a garden.

Even this couldnt persuade me because news flash if people dont want kids they wont have them no matter the bribe. And i just dont/didnt want to be a parent.

Its always been this way. Ppl without kids have never stood a chance of getting an SH house

MrsTerryPratchett · 24/08/2026 15:25

Is there a large number of homeless veterans and care leavers or is that a myth?

Veterans no. Depending on the statistics you look at and what you correct for, they are somewhere from half as likely to be homeless, to about the same as the general population. But it's a lovely, easy thing for twats to talk about like they 'care'.

Dweetfidilove · 24/08/2026 15:17

Statistically, British Asians sit at the top of the marriage pole, so this may cause a bigger problem than the one he's pretending to fix, no 🤔.

Mixed and black ethnic groups also have the highest reported rates of domestic violence, so again...

Is there a large number of homeless veterans and care leavers or is that a myth?

Either way, I'm sure his supporters will be okay with him 'giving away more of their homes'. Excellent 'will never happen' housing policy 👏🏾.