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

Of course you can't be bothered. Firstly your anecdote is clearly imaginary. Secondly you're on shaky ground. We know this because you're not arguing your point, you're unleashing a string of assumptions and insults in an attempt to get me to disclose my personal situation, therefore distracting attention from the fact that you're talking nonsense.

TL:DR? People who don't have a cogent argument are disproportionately likely to claim that they "can't be bothered" to prove their point.

They are not remotely market rate though.

Because social housing is providing your mother with a safe secure home! Don’t you value that? Don’t you want your mum safe and secure?!

They are not remotely market rate though.

A man with no job is given a home and pays less than a 100 a week for it out of his UC. Gets everything fixed for him. It’s obviously subsidised somewhere along the line despite council tenants insisting it’s not. Can’t really be bothered to argue this particular point tbh

Social rents aren't subsidised.

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.

There are experts on this thread explaining why it isn’t subsidised, just read those posts

A man with no job is given a home and pays less than a 100 a week for it out of his UC. Gets everything fixed for him. It’s obviously subsidised somewhere along the line despite council tenants insisting it’s not. Can’t really be bothered to argue this particular point tbh

That entirely depends whether you’re building under s106, but granted that’s more common than using grant.

and yes, outright sale owners are subsiding the build of social housing which is the whole point (although obviously they pay market price and see no different)

Although I think we have now established the tax payer doesn’t subsidise new build social housing? Excluding the 50 odd built by councils anyway.

I’m well aware of cost pressures thanks. As you know, the significant cost of house building is the land, and barratt et al reducing their programmes does give some opportunity for HAs to win bids for land, something that was much harder 5-10 years ago.

How my mother chooses to live her life had no bearing on me being allowed an opinion. This is like saying a child of a murderer isn’t allowed to be opposed to murder. I should agree with something just because of my parents ?

Also you cannot have tiered citizenship. That's a feature of the worst regimes out there. Either you're a citizen and enjoy equal rights or you're not.

and yet the child free were second on the list when they were discussing the possibility of conscription.

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.

Nope. Social housing isn't subsidised.

There what is? Are you going to private rented then? Seeing as you have it so bad and are so hot and sweaty and convinced non council homes didn’t get hot this summer? Should be worth the 3-4x rent increase right

Ah I see this thread has gone the same way as every other thread regarding social housing. Honestly, aren't you all bored of spouting the same old arguments Every.Fucking.Time?

A man who dosent work living in a place he got after laying down no deposit and only paying less than a 100 a week in the south east.
Someone’s subsidising it 😂

Social rents aren't subsidised.

And THERE it is

As they should, private renters typically have less disposable income than council dwellers because their rents higher. That means less money for sorting things out themselves little things like buying tumble dryers instead of hanging clothes everywhere which causes damp. Etc

I only ever see council people bitching they have it harder than everyone else and acting like all owners and private renters are rich. Instead of appreciating their cheap rent if it’s that bad come live privately without having us subsidise your rent

As they should, private renters typically have less disposable income than council dwellers because their rents higher. That means less money for sorting things out themselves little things like buying tumble dryers instead of hanging clothes everywhere which causes damp. Etc

I only ever see council people bitching they have it harder than everyone else and acting like all owners and private renters are rich. Instead of appreciating their cheap rent if it’s that bad come live privately without having us subsidise your rent

Devils advocate, but two people make better use of a one bedroom flat than a single person.