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.

That would be fun. All the decently married British Asians getting social housing.
But probably they will find a way to exclude them. Housing only for people tracing their last 3 generations in the UK, maybe.

Yep. Just the usual populist sound bites. They have no real policies just goady ramblings. Take no notice.

Perhaps they want to sell off the social housing and need tenants who could afford to buy

Now why doesn't that surprise me,

So they’re only going to prioritise married couples not unmarried couples. That's outrageous. Who are they to dictate what people do?

IMHO Reform are in gaga land. Would you believe a word Farage or Tice said after they're both under investigation by parliamentary standards? They seem to think there actually are houses to allocate in the first place!

Obviously it's because they hate women, yet again. The quiet part they won't say is that they don't want single mothers to be housed in social housing. Anyone who thinks reform will be any good for women is delusional.

Or single women without kids.

Why veterans ? They have big forces pensions

Quite. They likely hate single women without kids much more than they do single women with kids.

Yes, I can see reasons to do it but I still feel uncomfortable. I wholly believe that children should be prioritised and care leavers, but I'm not sure being married should mean people should wait shorter. Unsure re veterans either if, as pp said, they are not actually at more risk overall.

Yes, I'd like to know more about this. Maybe veterans should be prioritised but I'm not fully convinced.

Probably Reform is trying to motivate people to join the army?

I wonder also where civil partnerships fit in.

Why would the state recognise a relationship when the couple have chosen to leave the state out of their relationship by not marrying or entering into a civil partnership?

I take this as an opening bid. At least they have said something that might improve the way of life for working people not the benefit claiming experts.
It will have to be modified in the two years before the next Gen Election.
The final plan that goes into their manifesto will be so different it is pointless getting in a froth about it now.

Thanks,, this is important info. I hadn't realised this about veterans. If they are not more likely to be homeless then I don't think they should be prioritised. I agree US data can also confuse things.
Good point also re violent men trying to get houses through single women with kids.

They’ve also said they’d bring back right to buy of the little social housing stock we have. They’re are absolutely useless.

They arent the only ones

I thought it was working couples with young families over single unemployed people.

Wow, that’s interesting.

As far as I can tell, there has been an almost total breakdown of marriage outside wealthy, educated people who married late.
The state then picks up the bill in a lot of cases and the system so far has incentivised separate living in some cases.,

So any societal nudges back in the direction of stable two-parent families seems like a good idea. I guess the point here is that if there are two of you together and you still can’t earn enough, you must really be in dire straits.

I would love to see some proper analysis on the projections and thinking here though. I do think it’s just so
sad how many of my daughters’ friends have no dads. Something surely has to give.

I think the point with veterans is that their homelessness can stem from difficulty reintegrating into civilian life and trauma/PTSD/ physical injury from their service to their country so we have a duty to look after them.

All that does is flip reverse it Desperate single women without kids may be tempted to move in with a man they have only been dating for five mins cos women without kids are such low priority.

See also the sex for rent scandal from a couple of years back

The demand for social housing where I live is so great, it is means tested. A couple with a joint of income of £40k wont be eligible... so even a couple, married or not, both in FT NMW work would not get a look in anyway.

Is there any actual evidence that single women with children would be lower down on the list than married couples though?

'. I do think it’s just so sad how many of my daughters’ friends have no dads. '

• this is really sad. I definitely think something needs to be done : I'm just not convinced prioritising married couples for social housing is it.

Can I ask : what are the main reasons (I understand you may not know) why your daughter's friends' dads are absent? Because they are uninterested? Feel they would be worse off financially if they committed? The mothers didn't want to commit? Other reasons?