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

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 ?

Why would that be ironic? The poster is not an extension of her mother and doesn’t make decisions for the mother.

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.

The irony of saying everyone should look after themselves when your mum is in social housing 😂

Did you mean to respond to my comment from the get go I only even mentioned council houses? My mother rents from a housing association I get all housing associations are different but she can still do more to her home than I can (I rent private).

There’s no need for the entitled whinges I see on my fb where someone’s smashed a hole in the door and now it’s the councils job to come and fix it. Council houses seem to breed entitled in some people not everyone obviously. If I punched a hole in my door my private landlord would be pissed and take it off my deposit.

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.

but upthread you said everyone should be pro active and not expect SH So which is it?

Just pre empting the tirade @Samanthapiggles just pre empting the tirade. You are absolutely right. With a COUNCIL home you could do pretty much whatever within reason With a HOUSING ASSOCIATION home you cant. there is a difference. You need to do some reading. I would suggest Municipal Dreams The Rise and FALL of Council Housing by John Boughton.

Yes but a homeless mother with two kids would have the added worry that something like that could happen to her kids.

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

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

Ah yes the SH haters who dont think ppl should break their tenancy agreements and should be thrown out on their arse oooh but they can break their tenancy agreement by fixing and repairing things that their tenancy agreement says should be done by the HA oh and another one is fruit picking.

Also MN "why cant brits do the LIVE IN fruit picking jobs We have to have people come from other countries to do the jobs Brits wont do!
Posted this on another thread
"a. Fruit picking veg picking etc a lot of which is LIVE IN work. If you rent social housing you have to actually fucking well live there. You are not allowed to live away from home for the length of time these employers want you to. If you want that you will need to give SH tenants more rights! But that would also mean giving them more rights to leave their home for other reasons Up for that are we? Dont bother cos i know the answer to that already.
b. Gas safety checks fire door checks electric checks Surveys My tenancy agreement says i have to be home for these and no i cant get a friend or neighbour to do it for me.
c. the hatred there is for SH tenants ensures that some busybody would probably report the flat as abandoned if a tenant were to risk their tenancy by taking this job.
d. i have mentioned SH tenants because they will be the most likely group expected to take these jobs yet their hands are tied and they cant And even if they wont perhaps they want a life after the working day (just like home owners have You know the ones who arent expected to do these jobs instead of sharing a berth with a stranger"
I SWEAR TO GOD IM GOING TO GET THIS FUCKING LAMINATED. isnt it funny how the social housing haters froth like fuck when tenants break a tenancy agreement for any other reason but want them to break their tenancy agreements for bloody fruit picking and repair and fix stuff that their tenancy agreement tells them not to touch STINKING HYPOCRISY

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

I lived in temporary accommodation until my child was a toddler (too young to move out before that) and then after being told council would take years I looked into private renting. The other people I lived with wouldn’t even consider private renting and their kids were older than mine at the time. Maybe they still live there.

Not sure how subjecting a child to sharing a bathroom, kitchen and living room with non family members some of who were complete cunts to put it mildly, for an unnecessarily long period of time (literally years and years the majority of their childhood sometimes) makes you superior

Anyone with a reasonable position on the council housing list would be an absolute fool to choose private renting with all its insecurity, and extortionate costs should their situation improve and they can work. It would be hugely against their interests, so trying to frame it as 'helping themselves' is daft. They are helping themselves best by waiting it out.

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.

The literal answer to “who subsidises HAs which don’t use grants” is private market housebuilders through S106 agreements, under which they have to provide a certain number of heavily subsidised houses as a condition of planning permission. Those are normally sold to HAs cheaply. The HAs might use debt to acquire them and maybe the rent can cover the cost of the debt to finance the (subsidised) purchase price. Ultimately the subsidy is paid by the people paying full price for the other houses on the development (and by landowners etc who get a lower overall price for their land.)

It sounds like your HAs might do some of their own developments. I’m surprised they’re still finding that profitable, but I suspect it’s about to stop working very quickly. The commercial housebuilders can’t make money selling open market homes in this market so unless your HA is much better at building that Barratt, Persimmon etc (or gets free land, or you’re talking about S106 houses etc) then it’s likely to find that cross subsidy getting much, much harder. Ask your development team what has happened to build costs and interest rates over the last few years and for some examples of not-yet-started debt financed projects which they expect to be profitable, and then maybe get a second opinion from an outside party on those projects.

Housing aspect of universal credit rarely fully covers private renters rent. So they also have to use some of their own money. Plus the sheer entitlement I’ve noticed from a lot of council tenants “they need to give me a bigger place/ fix this thing I could easily fix myself” plus the general expectation that you should sit around in your own shitty situation until they give you somewhere no matter how long it takes (saw this with some of the people I lived in temporary accommodation with) refusing to even consider private renting.
They’re generally so entitled than you see adults that don’t even have kids demanding a place online there’s no reason they can’t get a job and rent or buy their own place. At least people with kids have the reason they can’t work more is they have to look after the kids.

private renters also use universal credit to pay their rent. If that’s the bit you think is free you have an issue with benefits, not social housing

Would you say this is free:
man I know in his fifties unemployed (long term) actually has his own council flat despite being single and childless (surprise surprise for the people who think single men don’t get council homes) his rent is straight up less than £100 a week (so less than £400 a month) we live in the south east btw.
And universal credit pays that for him.

No health issues btw

No such thing as a free home.

It just grates to read people say teen mums have kids just for a free council house (idk if that’s been said on here but I’ve heard it loads) when I’ve always rented privately. Then the same people demanding council homes for childless men (and women) and saying it’s unfair all the teen mums get priority when it’s not necessarily so. It should be obvious why a single person without kids doesn't need a free home anyway. Imagine sleeping on the street by yourself now imagine sleeping on the street with two kids in tow which do you think is harder?

Council and social housing is good for society; it provides stability and, ideally, mixed communities (as per the original intent). The private rental sector is a second rate substitute for the social rent sector. It should play a minimal role at best.

Social and council housing is no more "free shit" than healthcare it education. It's the hallmark of a civilised society that ensures all citizens' essential needs are met. I'm surprised that someone who went through what must have been a challenging experience would seek to denigrate the importance of affordable and secure housing in favour of the chaos of the lightly regulated private sector.

Are there the usual hate comments against young mums whenever this subject comes up? I had mine at 16 and 18 and apparently a lot of people think that was just for a free council house.
I have always privated rented and have come around to the idea why should anyone sit around demanding a home from the council anyway? Unless you grew up in care because then the state kind of is your parent.

Other than that buy/rent your own home. And there’s always the “why are people without kids deprioritised” Jesus Christ because you have even less of a reason to be demanding free shit how is that rocket science.

Reform are like going back in time. They shouldn’t be encouraging marriage.