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.

Of course they won't. They'll do fuck all, just like at the moment. They are saying what they think people want to hear in order to get voted in, so they can cosy up to Trump and his shareholders and receive bribes from the rich to implement laws that will benefit only them.

What on earth are you talking about? You claimed social housing wasn’t subsidised.
“and its not bloody subsidised”
There’s no gotcha, you’re making up a whole load a random shit that isn’t relevant or wasn’t commented on by me.
I merely said of course social housing is subsidised, that’s the entire point of its existence.
Childcare is no business of mine, it’s you trying to make weird gotchas with your relentless childcare/cleaner nonsense that isn’t linked to anything I’ve said.

it’s not subsidised. That’s what it costs to run and maintain social housing.

comparing it to a landlord with massive mortgages and a desire to make profit doesn’t mean the cheaper version is subsidised by someone.

I think they've heard the PM talking about council houses, know its gone down well, so have decided to pretend it's their policy too. Their voters are the same people who bang on about single mums getting pregnant to get a council house, so the married couple thing is to keep them happy.
The no extra cost is just the latest example of saying any old rubbish they think people will like, safe in the knowledge they'll never be in a position to have to prove themselves.

Does 'British Born' mean also those wrong coloured (according to Reform ) 'British Borns'? I mean, some members have loudly decided it don't matter whevver you was born 'ere, you 'ent from 'ere. It must be a tricky time for them...

It’s below market rent, which by default makes it subsidised.
It’s often also largely in the form of payments to landlords, again subsidising housing costs.

Part of a Reform agenda?

I think you will find that they only want certain people to have children.

As @TheFairyCaravan points out veterans are already in a much better position than many others. Further prioritisation isn't warranted. It's the right's version of virtue signalling.

It doesn't mean that actually.
Subsidised means that the amount paid by users of the service doesn't cover the costs of providing them with that service, so the service would make a loss and be unsustainable without the subsidy.
Provided the rent a tenant pays covers the costs incurred in housing them, the landlord breaks even, no subsidy required. Market rent requires more than breaking even, as its based on a for profit model.
While the housing function in a particular local authority may require subsidy, this is due to the numbers of tenants not paying rent. A tenant who pays rent is not paying a subsidised rent. They are paying an amount that doesn't require profit to be made.
The biggest beneficiaries of housing related tax payer subsidies are private landlords.

I remember when you had to be married to get on the housing list, if you were lucky you got a 2 bed flat and did not get a house unless you had kids of opposite sexes.
Unmarried mums were expected to stay living with parents until they could find a man to marry them or put the kid up for adoption....that was 'the good old days for boomers'.....

Baffling that a party pushing the importance of marriage is run by twice divorced Nigel Farage, once divorced Richard Tice, the single Zia Yusuf and Lee Anderson who has separated from his wife.

That’s not what subsidised means. Subsidised means it’s cheaper because someone else is paying part of it and passing the discount onto the user.

This is not the case in social housing.

You can’t compare to market rent. That in no way reflects the cost of running the property.
If you’re outside of the capitalist model market rent is irrelevant.

Not sure what payments to landlords means- from who?

No. They're not going to do anything except cost the UK taxpayer money and profit from Russia and money laundering.🙄

It's the Reform way.🤷‍♀️

Reform voters… still some single mum hate lurking in there.

Yep- I'm not wasting headspace on their announcements- it's all just distraction from the £5million elephant anyway.

The vast majority of social housing provision is subsidising rent prices by the council paying a portion or all of the rent cost.
The rent is still being charged whether you agree with the concept or not, the council is subsidising the tenant in receipt of council benefits either by a portion or all of the cost, therefore making it cheaper or in some cases but probably less common, fully free.

It’s bullshit, like everything else they say.
let’s give the married 25 year olds a house, fuck the single parents with kids, the kids who get kicked out of the care system at 18 because they’re ‘adults’, the disabled, the elderly and their carers.
Oh and fuck the key workers on low wages.

“The vast majority of social housing provision is subsidising rent prices by the council paying a portion or all of the rent cost.”

where on earth did you get this idea?! This isn’t true at all. The residents pay their rent.

I wonder whether it also applies to same sex married couples with children.

Yes, my great-great-aunt did this with ex RAF men after she was widowed. Company and gave her some financial security.

More generally, there's a lot if ways housing stock could be improved. More control over overseas & UK owners using second homes as investment. AirBNB more tightly controlled. Etc etc

Surely legally it would need to unless Reform want to repeal gay marriage? I doubt that.

Surely the only point of them saying any of this is to get more column inches, which they succeed with every day. If we stop giving them air time, the country will be less divisive.

I agree there's big issues with what they're saying but small correction : they do at least say care leavers would also be prioritised.

I suspect they will say they're going to cut the waiting lists and build more so no one will have to wait too long.

We’re years away from an election and Reform will have u-turned on many of these headline grabbing announcements by the time it comes around. Most of what they have announced recently falls apart at the slightest interrogation and, more importantly for Reform, is simply too divisive. They need to win over a much greater portion of the British electorate to have any chance at a majority.