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

[QueenSophia]

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.

Sorry, here's the link:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgjgyg1rngo

Might just be because two people in a house is better use of the space than one person.

It’s tosh- said people never get near the social housing register as in areas of high demand it will almost exclusively be people with disabilities, vulnerabilities and multiple children who willl secure social housing in the first please. In areas of London no one else has got near the top of the list in a decade.

they don’t even mention children- so we’d have a single mum of 4 in a hostel whilst a married couple take priority over the children?! Who would want to live in that world

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.

I agree mostly but in the article I quoted in OP they do say children will be prioritised.

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

I don’t think single or couples should rank above the other, the latter is just stupid and the reality is the former does end up with couples half living together in order to keep their council house and benefits.

I would like everyone to have a house, I would like actually everyone to have two houses - a house to live in and a holiday house, ideally. However, there are no houses, literally, there is a housing crisis. I am private, semi-detached in horrible area (money spent by choice elsewhere). A wall is separating us from a council house with UK-born (they joke from Domesday Book) mum and dad, their two sons in their 40s, and one son's daughter (does not want to live with mum). A 2-bed house (they turned a living room into a bedroom). No availability of council houses for them - they have never in their lives been on benefits, they work in low paid jobs - bought the lies that 'all jobs are respectful, all jobs are worthy' - never been to uni.
So yes, yes, and yes - I would welcome British-born council house dwellers getting priority, always. And I have my own accommodation.

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

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

Reform thrive on cruelty and division.

They also do not want to end homelessness and rough sleeping.

And their policies cost a lot to fund.

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

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.

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.

You are mistaken @TopPocketFind. This policy, like practically all their policies, will cost the taxpayer nothing. Not a penny.😇

Deputy leader Richard Tice has also set out plans to build 50,000 affordable social homes a year at a news conference, a policy which the party says will require no new taxes or borrowing.

Aye Richard.🤣🤣🤣

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

Two people WITHOUT kids will get a one bedroom FLAT not a house. DH and i got our flat in 1994 four years before we got married. We spent two years and three months before that in a bedsit
House indeed!

Oh i see he means couples with kids But like i said they have always qualified for a house. The childfree or childless dont

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 👏🏾.

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'.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.