Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

342 replies

QueenSophia · 24/08/2026 14:01

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.

OP posts:
Vallies · 28/08/2026 16:31

Anarchy99 · 28/08/2026 16:06

Only if the woman isn’t financially independent.

Show quote history

Yes, on balance...

Anarchy99 · 28/08/2026 16:06

Vallies · 28/08/2026 15:56

I abhor pretty much everything they spout and I haven't read the detail, in which I suspect I'll find plenty to dislike, but as a headline policy, it does make some sense. Marriage is a more stable environment to raise a family, and even if the family breaks down, women (amd therefore children) are in a stronger position than if parents aren't married.

There are exceptions of course, but on balance marriage is good for children.

Only if the woman isn’t financially independent.

yellowspanner · 28/08/2026 16:06

SomersetBrie · 28/08/2026 15:51

In "fairness" to Reform, I think the British-born thing is a Restore policy rather than a Reform policy.
I was just curious how the poster who brought the subject up would see it being policed.

I was born in Ireland, thankfully don't need social housing but I would presumably be kicked out as well. DH and my British-born children would be fine. Maybe I could sleep on the sofa.

Show quote history

Yes they should have less right.

TopPocketFind · 28/08/2026 16:05

Reform did say 'British born' when announcing the policy.

And Tice is not exactly an example when it comes to marriage.

yellowspanner · 28/08/2026 16:05

Yes all those mentioned would be excluded. Certainly children born to asylum seekers and children born outside the UK. UK born married adults and veterans would get absolute priority.

Vallies · 28/08/2026 15:56

I abhor pretty much everything they spout and I haven't read the detail, in which I suspect I'll find plenty to dislike, but as a headline policy, it does make some sense. Marriage is a more stable environment to raise a family, and even if the family breaks down, women (amd therefore children) are in a stronger position than if parents aren't married.

There are exceptions of course, but on balance marriage is good for children.

Ladywindermeresbroom · 28/08/2026 15:54

T1mTum · 24/08/2026 14:42

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

I thought we needed more children to stop the falling birthrate?
I would like to see more kids born so there is someone to pay for my pension in years to come !

SomersetBrie · 28/08/2026 15:51

LizzieW1969 · 28/08/2026 15:31

My DB as well, plus my F was Czech (then a naturalised Australian) and never became British. My DM is British. My DB became British 10 years ago, but has lived in the UK almost all his life.

Should he have less right to housing than my DSis and me, just because we happened to be born in the UK and he wasn’t?

Show quote history

In "fairness" to Reform, I think the British-born thing is a Restore policy rather than a Reform policy.
I was just curious how the poster who brought the subject up would see it being policed.

I was born in Ireland, thankfully don't need social housing but I would presumably be kicked out as well. DH and my British-born children would be fine. Maybe I could sleep on the sofa.

LizzieW1969 · 28/08/2026 15:31

SomersetBrie · 28/08/2026 12:12

Asylum seekers don't get social housing, they are in temporary (often for too long) accommodation until asylum is granted/refused.

My SIL was born abroad to British parents, would she be excluded as well?

Show quote history

My DB as well, plus my F was Czech (then a naturalised Australian) and never became British. My DM is British. My DB became British 10 years ago, but has lived in the UK almost all his life.

Should he have less right to housing than my DSis and me, just because we happened to be born in the UK and he wasn’t?

Puzzledandpissedoff · 28/08/2026 12:30

MaidsRoom · 25/08/2026 15:40

Here is a link to today’s announcement of £16bn of new subsidy, as part of a £39bn subsidy programme.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-social-and-affordable-homes-programme-and-the-reinvigoration-of-council-housebuilding/the-social-and-affordable-homes-programme-and-the-reinvigoration-of-council-housebuilding

Show quote history

Don't spoil it, MaidsRoom ... the key is of course in the words new subsidy, in this case meaning in addition to that which exists already, but some will still go on prating "It isn't subsidised" as if that makes it true [hmm ]

TopPocketFind · 28/08/2026 12:24

SomersetBrie · 28/08/2026 12:12

Asylum seekers don't get social housing, they are in temporary (often for too long) accommodation until asylum is granted/refused.

My SIL was born abroad to British parents, would she be excluded as well?

Show quote history

Good point.

Also if one person in the family is 'foreign born' does that exclude them?

TopPocketFind · 28/08/2026 12:15

yellowspanner · 28/08/2026 12:12

British born people are people born in Britain. Is that so hard to understand ?

Does that include a child born to an asylum seeker?

SomersetBrie · 28/08/2026 12:12

yellowspanner · 28/08/2026 12:08

Reform are right. Social house for British born people not asylum seekers. Yes to veterans

Asylum seekers don't get social housing, they are in temporary (often for too long) accommodation until asylum is granted/refused.

My SIL was born abroad to British parents, would she be excluded as well?

yellowspanner · 28/08/2026 12:12

British born people are people born in Britain. Is that so hard to understand ?

yellowspanner · 28/08/2026 12:11

Why should people with kids be prioritised over young British married couples. Some people just have kids to get benefits and social housing

TopPocketFind · 28/08/2026 12:09

yellowspanner · 28/08/2026 12:08

Reform are right. Social house for British born people not asylum seekers. Yes to veterans

What are 'British born people'? How do you define it?

yellowspanner · 28/08/2026 12:08

Reform are right. Social house for British born people not asylum seekers. Yes to veterans

XenoBitch · 28/08/2026 12:05

QueenSophia · 28/08/2026 12:03

Personally I've never thought singles should be prioritised over those with children. Children should always come first. My issue is with prioritising married adults over single adults.

Show quote history

Single people would only get a one bed place anyway. Someone with a child would get a two bed.
Yep, it makes no sense to prioritise a married couple over an unmarried couple.

Original poster
QueenSophia · 28/08/2026 12:03

Samanthapiggles · 25/08/2026 19:55

I originally brung him up because people always accuse teen mums of stealing all the council homes (I had my first at 16 and I privately rent so it irks me) then they bemoan single men with no kids (or single people in general) not getting given their god given entitlement from the council of an entire home.
Well here’s a middle aged man with no kids who was given a council flat. He’s spent the majority of his early adult life drinking and drugging!* The reason people with kids get priority is because kids are more vulnerable than adults and there’s no reason an able bodied adult can’t get a job and buy/rent their own property!
Those little one bed council properties would be better served given to young adults leaving foster care or disabled people. Why does everyone think being given an entire property for doing nothing is their god given right anyway?

*He's actually a nice guy but the point still stands

Show quote history

Personally I've never thought singles should be prioritised over those with children. Children should always come first. My issue is with prioritising married adults over single adults.

OP posts:
Original poster
QueenSophia · 28/08/2026 12:00

TopPocketFind · 25/08/2026 16:32

Probably using AI to come up with a profile.

This has been happening on other threads.

Show quote history

I wish MN would crack down on this...

OP posts:
Original poster
QueenSophia · 28/08/2026 11:59

MaidsRoom · 25/08/2026 15:35

The government literally announced £16bn of new social housing subsidy this morning. They taxpayer is now subsidising it much more directly because S106 has stopped working so well, and because they want to see an acceleration of social housebuilding and direct subsidy is the only way to do that.

Show quote history

Yes, I hope the government can improve the housing situation.

OP posts:
Original poster
QueenSophia · 28/08/2026 11:53

Samanthapiggles · 25/08/2026 14:30

Yeah they should that’s right. But I went on to say especially people who don’t have kids or disabilities or care leavers. Absolutely no excuses there. But still all I see is grown men claiming it’s unfair all the teen mums get council houses (we don’t) and they should get one too.

Absolutely no excuse for Richard age 43 to go get a job and buy or rent his own place.

Show quote history

Those men are idiots. Teenage pregnancy is much rarer now so another reason that's unlikely.

OP posts:
Original poster
QueenSophia · 28/08/2026 11:51

MrsTerryPratchett · 25/08/2026 14:27

Social housing allocation should be based on need, not the relationship status of the applicant.

This is complicated too. If only vulnerable, trauma impacted people with lots of issues get housing, that housing will become unmanageable. Old council estates with young families, a range of needs all the way to my gran and granddad were livable, safer, people with more could help those with less out. Balanced communities are safer and happier.

Well a homeless woman risks being attacked and raped while sleeping on the street whether she has kids in tow or not

Studies often show that 'gender based violence' (god help us) or VAWG is the #1 issue identified by female users of homeless provision. And that is probably already tramatised women.

Another good point.

OP posts:
Original poster
QueenSophia · 28/08/2026 11:50

Samanthapiggles · 25/08/2026 14:18

What is this long rant about fruit picking? My mother rents from a housing association and fixes things up herself. And with a council home you can do pretty much whatever you want.

But then there’s some who let their kids punch holes in the door and then demand the council give them a new door on facebook

Show quote history

To be fair, there's all kinds of aggravating people on Facebook : the most vocal of any kind of annoying person will be there.

OP posts:
Original poster
QueenSophia · 28/08/2026 11:46

BermudaRhombus · 25/08/2026 21:33

I mean it’s fine to debate hypotheticals, but this is literally the equivalent of debating policy if the Monster Raving Loony party were in government. It’s extraordinary how many reform supporters don’t understand first past the post elections. Why are we wasting time debating this?! Far better to focus on parties who could actually win a national election.

How certain is it, though, that Reform couldn't win a place in a coalition at least? I think we should be aware of their policies in case.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread