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:
yellowspanner · 28/08/2026 12:08

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

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 12:11

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

yellowspanner · 28/08/2026 12:12

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

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?

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?

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?

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 ]

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?

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.

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 !

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.

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.

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 16:06

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.

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.

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...

Dontcallmescarface · 29/08/2026 12:16

yellowspanner · 28/08/2026 12:12

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

Thousands of children are born in other countries to British parents and thousands are born here (so born in Britain), who are children of immigrants (most of whom are here legally BTW), so by your logic children of immigrants are entitled to SH but not children of British parents. You've kinda shot yourself in the foot with that statement haven't you?

Bikenutz · 29/08/2026 12:45

It’s impractical and not grounded in reality, like most Reform policy ...

People who are homeless, living in unsuitable housing, or needing to move because of disability, illness or hardship receive priority currently, and that is a common sense approach that’s as cost effective as it can be for the taxpayer.

If a fixed percentage of all social homes were reserved for British-born workers under 35 and married couples, many high-need households would face longer waits for housing, increasing pressure on other public services, cost more for the taxpayer, and we’d see more street homelessness too probably.

Unless of course Reform would be embarking on a huge social house building programme in parallel …

Even if they got in and pushed it through, it would require major changes to the law and would be vulnerable to legal challenge.

Veterans, domestic abuse victims and care leavers are already prioritised where I am, so that’s not a change. It’s just framing to make their suggestion sound more acceptable.

BermudaRhombus · 29/08/2026 12:53

Saw Laila Cunningham on TV trying to defend this policy and getting in a real mess. She didn’t seem to know exactly what the policy was, or how it would work. It’s like everything that Reform puts out: sounds superficially appealing and then completely falls apart as soon as anyone queries the details. God help us if they ever get near government.

Original poster
QueenSophia · 29/08/2026 17:52

yellowspanner · 28/08/2026 12:08

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

The main question of the thread was about prioritising married, though. There's lots of discussion of the British born element already.

OP posts:
Original poster
QueenSophia · 29/08/2026 17:53

Bikenutz · 29/08/2026 12:45

It’s impractical and not grounded in reality, like most Reform policy ...

People who are homeless, living in unsuitable housing, or needing to move because of disability, illness or hardship receive priority currently, and that is a common sense approach that’s as cost effective as it can be for the taxpayer.

If a fixed percentage of all social homes were reserved for British-born workers under 35 and married couples, many high-need households would face longer waits for housing, increasing pressure on other public services, cost more for the taxpayer, and we’d see more street homelessness too probably.

Unless of course Reform would be embarking on a huge social house building programme in parallel …

Even if they got in and pushed it through, it would require major changes to the law and would be vulnerable to legal challenge.

Veterans, domestic abuse victims and care leavers are already prioritised where I am, so that’s not a change. It’s just framing to make their suggestion sound more acceptable.

I hope we do get more social housing as soon as possible. Hopefully non Reform parties will deliver that..

OP posts:
Original poster
QueenSophia · 29/08/2026 17:55

Anarchy99 · 28/08/2026 16:06

Only if the woman isn’t financially independent.

Show quote history

Generally women are the lower earners though, I agree that if they're not, marriage is not a benefit in the same way. I think commitment is good though if the relationship is a good one.

OP posts:
JenniferBooth · 29/08/2026 22:25

Ladywindermeresbroom · 28/08/2026 15:54

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 !

Show quote history

Well i remember the Tories saying ppl shouldnt have kids if they cant afford them.

But then whine and moan now the reckoning has to be paid.
A womans place is in the wrong!!

JenniferBooth · 29/08/2026 22:31

JenniferBooth · 29/08/2026 22:25

Well i remember the Tories saying ppl shouldnt have kids if they cant afford them.

But then whine and moan now the reckoning has to be paid.
A womans place is in the wrong!!

Show quote history

And on the street according to some if she hasnt reproduced.
Blessed be the fruit