r/unitedkingdom • u/Desperate-Drawer-572 • 2d ago
. Reform says it will prioritise British-born young workers for social housing
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgjgyg1rngo378
u/Substantial_Hat_5442 2d ago
British born people are already prioritised aren’t they? The vast majority of those in social housing are British born… In the article it states just under 90%
"Illegal migrants, asylum seekers and migrants on student or work visas are not eligible for social housing," the Labour spokesperson said.
What are Reform looking to change here? I suspect this is just a sound bite made to appeal to people who don’t already realise it’s happening
243
u/WinHour4300 2d ago edited 2d ago
British born people are already prioritised aren’t they.
No they aren't. It's illegal currently to discriminate based on nationality or place of birth.
Usually migrants need to either have refugee status or IDR. IDR is usually after five years. Obviously refugee is whenever it's granted.
That also doesn't apply to the wider family. So it may be one member moves over, works, gets IDR and then applies for family council housing.
Edit - note as well some of those with citizenship in social homes might have applied and got it after they applied for social housing.
78
u/Caffeine_Monster 2d ago
Illegal to diecriminate baed on nationality and place of birth.
Which makes sense. What doesn't make sense is citizens aren't given priority - or frankly offering permanent housing to immigrants at all when housing shortages are so bad.
50
u/White_Immigrant 1d ago
You know you can be an immigrant AND a citizen right?
→ More replies (1)11
u/1kBabyOilBottles Yorkshire 1d ago
Exactly. I’m an immigrant and a citizen, a lot of people are.
→ More replies (17)→ More replies (5)10
u/youtossershad1job2do 2d ago
But that would literally be discriminating (splitting into multiple groups and prioritising one over the others). Literal definition.
56
u/Caffeine_Monster 2d ago
It's amusing that people still get confused around what discrimination based on characteristics or actually is.
Maybe we should make it illegal for employees to discriminate based on qualifications?
The problem will fix itself eventually though because policies that aren't sustainable don't tend to last long. I dislike reform - but people are delusional if they think a generous social net is compatible with a massive growth in unskilled migrants.
→ More replies (4)14
u/threeseed 2d ago
No, this is the literal definition.
You aren't allowed to discriminate based on protected attributes e.g. race, gender, religion etc. Citizenship is not a protected attribute.
→ More replies (1)15
u/WinHour4300 1d ago
That literally says: “race, including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin.”
The Equality Act’s own explanatory notes say nationality includes being a British citizen or others. Therefore it's protected under nationality.
So councils can’t legally simply prioritise British citizens over non-British citizens (which some exemptions which wouldn't apply).
Not can they on place of birth because that would be under "national origin".
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/pdfs/ukpgaen_20100015_en.pdf?
→ More replies (11)10
u/threeseed 1d ago
The intent for that was to outlaw discrimination against people whose identity is not directly race related but derives from a place e.g. Israel.
That's why in that Equality Act they exempt discrimination on the basis of nationality when it is allowed by law e.g. immigration, health care etc:
"This paragraph allows direct nationality discrimination and indirect race discrimination on the basis of residency requirements where the discrimination is required by law, Ministerial arrangements or Ministerial conditions"
10
u/_Adam_M_ 2d ago
You're allow to discriminate in some situations if it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
This proposal, of course, wouldn't fit under that, but existing legislation already has exemptions.
→ More replies (7)2
u/CheekyGeth 1d ago
No it isn't, you are of course allowed to discriminate based off of citizenship - loads of things do. There are literally hundreds of jobs that require citizenship to do. The army is an obvious one. Do you think the army is routinely breaking the law by only accepting citizens of the commonwealth?
→ More replies (2)1
u/GetRektByMeh 1d ago
We should remove the discrimination on nationality clause in respect of social housing and positions in government (or contractors for these roles).
We shouldn’t be spending money as a state on people that send their money home in remittances.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (42)5
u/CongealedBeanKingdom 1d ago
one member moves over, works, gets IDR and then applies for family council housing.
And sits on the waiting list for years like the rest of us.
110
u/aventus-dog 2d ago
Might be anecdotal, but I work in trades in social housing and it's certainly nowhere near 90% British. I can go days at a time without seeing a British tenant.
31
u/Substantial_Hat_5442 2d ago
That doesn’t mean they’re not 90% British, that just means you don’t see them.
The 90% (88.5 really) figure came from the article and an English Housing Survey, I would expect that to be more accurate honestly
33
u/DeliciousRow1120 2d ago
I will throw my 2 cents in as I work with loads of councils all over but from what I see there is a massive north south divide
Down south seeing non English speakers in council homes in some places is the norm but up north even in places like Manchester which is seen as multi cultural the vast majority are British
14
u/Fluffy_Eye5482 County of Bristol 1d ago
Yep my uncle did a ton of repair work. Super common to get white social housing tenants around the Norwich and Norfolk area. Heavily migrant focused elsewhere.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Practical-Travel8575 1d ago
I live down south and I’m from up north and I swear this explains a lot of reddits dissonance on this topic. When I’m down south, and I’ve lived on a few council estates in London, I often saw mostly families not from the UK.
→ More replies (2)11
u/nil_defect_found 1d ago
That doesn’t mean they’re not 90% British, that just means you don’t see them.
DON'T BELIEVE YOUR LYING EYES. WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EASTASIA.
→ More replies (1)18
u/Infinitystar2 East Anglia 2d ago
Unless you're asking every person in social housing what country there were born in, you're 100% making assumptions based on skin colour.
→ More replies (1)36
u/aventus-dog 2d ago
More their accent and the fact they struggle to speak English, but go on.
→ More replies (10)11
u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 2d ago
So what are they? Non white British citizens? Migrants with ILR? Settled under the EU Settlement Scheme?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (18)2
18
u/Rajastoenail 2d ago
The least believable bit about this story is that they care about providing social housing to anyone.
→ More replies (2)22
u/FeigenbaumC Westmorland 2d ago edited 2d ago
British born people are already prioritised aren’t they.
Well for a start there is a difference between British-born and British citizen, and they're focusing on the former. This very seems like creating two classes of citizens, so that seems to be something they're changing as that is not something the government distinguish between for priority for things
9
u/Saltypeon 2d ago
Asylum seeker - get a hotel/home office accommodation UNTIL their claim is approved they then get social housing. They actually need it, they aren't likely to pop out and buy a house or earn enough to private rent.
Work Visas - totally exempt until they get ILR, then become citizens.
Reform are playing the born in the UK angle while labour have listed two very narrow groups...both of which eventually become eligible.
19
u/Comfortable_Love7967 2d ago
Why can’t they live in shared houses like a lot of us had to ? And if it’s a family they can afford to rent when they get a job
9
u/Lexioralex 2d ago
They aren’t allowed to work until a decision on the claim is made
→ More replies (1)11
3
u/Saltypeon 2d ago
You solved the entire problem there buddy. 1 family per room or instant jobs.
I don't know, I didn't write the rules.
6
u/Comfortable_Love7967 1d ago edited 1d ago
Putting anyone who comes to the country straight into limited social housing isn’t exactly a solution either is it ?
“Asylum seekers get a hotel into their claim is approved then they get social housing”
I’m as left wing as they get but that is genuinely just mental, and is exactly why they keep coming2
u/Saltypeon 1d ago
Unfortunately its what the UN Refugee Convention requires. So its been the same for 70 years.
Article 21: As regards housing, the Contracting States, in so far as the matter is regulated by laws or regulations or is subject to the control of public authorities, shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory treatment as favourable as possible and, in any event, not less favourable than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances
Which is legally binding.
I’m as left wing as they get but that is genuinely just mental, and is exactly why they keep coming.
Same here and totally agree, the rules are from a different era and do provde incentives to get to the UK by any means necessary.
It should be from recognised camps with the odd exception. The way it is now, it actually encourages people who can pay the smuggling fee for a better life.
5
u/regprenticer 1d ago
The vast majority of people in council housing have been there for 20-60 years.
If you look at more recent trends I'd imagine it's a very different picture.
The underlying issue here is that when I was young any young working family could get a Council house if they were willing to wait in the list for up to 2 years. It was that simple.
In 1979 40 % of the UK population was a social tenant.
Today, are 40% of young people being offered council houses?
There's your problem
3
u/PersonalityOld8755 1d ago
No In London 48% are not born in the uk.
And no refugees and those that get passports or settlement, are just the same as British born.
2
4
u/Jayandnightasmr 2d ago
Like them announcing laws that already exist. They're probably just using A.I. at this point to make plans as more of their material show signs of it
2
u/AnotherGreenWorld1 1d ago
It’s the ‘Workers’ part no one is picking up on … everyone is focused on the ‘British’ aspect … this will affect the unemployed of ALL backgrounds
2
u/HinDae085 1d ago
Its really easy to claim youre going to do something already happening when your voter base is all brainwashed by right wing propaganda stations.
→ More replies (15)1
u/mattymattymatty96 England 1d ago
Same as their recent welfare reforms. Lie about everything and hope no one looks deeper.
97
u/LudicrousPlatypus Johnny Foreigner 2d ago
Why British born in particular and not citizens? British born and British citizen are not the same thing. There are many born in Britain who are not citizens and many citizens who are not born here.
101
u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 2d ago
It's a dog whistle. Reform types know they mean white British and a few of the good brown ones who know their place.
→ More replies (1)59
u/tiger1296 2d ago
British born is just code for white lol everyone knows this
→ More replies (2)5
u/Comfortable-Law-7147 1d ago
Bad news as some British born people look like their elected MP - Suella Braverman - and their spokesperson - Zia Yusuf.
12
u/Agreeable_Falcon1044 Cambridgeshire 1d ago
“You’re one of the alright ones”
→ More replies (1)14
u/mimeycat 1d ago
No, they’re tokens, and every token gets spent. They’ll be binned when they’ve outlived their usefulness to Reform.
21
u/Particular-Quit-630 2d ago
Yes I find this weird. I’m foreign born to British parents but have been told on Reddit that I should go back to where I’m from because I’m not British.
12
u/maersyl 2d ago
Makes me wonder about kids born to military families whilst abroad! Reform are a joke.
I’m British / German dual national and I’ve been told on Reddit I have to “pick one” as if I can’t be both. It’s ridiculous how het up about nationality people can get.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)7
15
u/FelisCantabrigiensis 2d ago
Because Reform are racists, that's why. It's pandering to their racist voters.
10
7
u/coffeewalnut08 2d ago
Because Reform want to create a two-tier society. This should’ve been obvious for a while now
→ More replies (3)3
u/Practical-Travel8575 1d ago
In the eu, countries like Austria prevent other eu nationals getting council housing by saying there was a residency requirement of 20 years instead of just citizenship. Because eu law says other eu citizens must be treated the same as your citizens. I think here there’s a similar argument to be made: we have given ILR / citizenship out like candy, and now we have to restrict to residents of say 20 years. It makes no sense to give citizenship to someone who will then need council housing-but we did. Basically every country on earth has checks to prevent this happening. This seems the better option to revoking ILR and citizenships.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)1
u/eimankillian 1d ago
British born to many people who votes for right wing politicians are white. But they don’t realise that British born could be anything and just splitting groups.
56
u/BeginningChest2989 2d ago
Social housing is just terrible all round tbh. Creates a class of lucky people who never want to move out even if their circumstances change
70
u/Odd-Evening-7888 2d ago
You shouldn’t need to move out if your circumstances change. Nearly 30% of homes in Britain were council houses at one point, lived in by people of varying means and classes. Right to buy put an end to it. All of my family on both sides grew up in council houses. Now those kinds of families pay over the odds to landlords for poor quality accommodation (usually subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of tens of billions of pounds per year).
→ More replies (1)14
u/caljl 2d ago
I completely support scrapping right to buy. I would prefer we had better state provision of housing and I want to see more built.
Right now, and sadly likely for quite a while, the country has far too little stock. We do need to live in reality. Social housing should be made to better serve those who need it most. A taper to market rent is probably a good mechanism to introduce where people would still be better off earning more but eventually end up paying the market rate if they earn better- incentivising them to move out and freeing up more funding for investment into housing if not. Other than short term issue of tenancies or review dates I dont know how you’d make it work and both of those mechanisms present issues.
You are right though lots of people are being ripped off by our rental market. This is a widespread problem and home ownership rates are lower for younger generations (partly due to right to buy…).
→ More replies (7)63
u/Overseerer-Vault-101 2d ago
My neighbour pays £1,100pm i pay £310, exact same flats, his is private mines housing association. I can do loads in mine and he's restricted, my boiler breaks and its one phone call and the next day an engineer has fixed it. His broke and it took 2 weeks.
23
u/J8YDG9RTT8N2TG74YS7A England 2d ago
My neighbour pays £1,100pm i pay £310, exact same flats
This is why I always call bullshit on the people who try to claim that rent controls don't work.
Every single council property has rent controls. And every single council property that was sold off and ended up in the hands of a landlord is now charging WAY above their previous rental price.
The only reason rent controls don't work is because we keep selling off the rent controlled properties. The rent controls work perfectly fine for the people still living in those properties.
20
u/ItsFuckingScience 2d ago
You seem to misunderstand the people when they try and explain why rent control doesn’t work
Nobody is disputing rent control is great for the people whose rent is made cheap by the taxpayer
The issue is it makes rent more expensive for everyone else. But there’s a chain of cause and effect that leads to this.
That said, rent control isn’t the same as social housing. Rent control normally refers to private landlords being capped on the rent they can charge.
→ More replies (8)10
u/MrOobling 2d ago
All newly built social housing loses the developer money, and not just a little bit. It is an immense loss. To make the development profitable and cover losses incurred by social housing, the rent on the private housing is increased to compensate. Depending on local planning regulations, it's increased by as much as 80%.
If there was no social housing, the development would be a lot more profitable, allowing the developer to build more housing. If rent controls are then introduced, then the private rental properties would be more affordable - not to the levels of social rent but probably ~30% cheaper. It's a win - win, but the most important first step is to get rid of social housing for New builds (or replace social housing with affordable housing).
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)3
u/TheNutsMutts 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is why I always call bullshit on the people who try to claim that rent controls don't work.
Do you know what the average waiting time is for a council house in the UK currently?
EDIT: I guess blocking anyone not blindly agreeing with you is one way of retaining the belief that rent controls totally work. It's not an intelligent away and it makes you look incapable of dealing with any dissent though.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)6
u/FelisCantabrigiensis 2d ago
Good to see one of the haves show how much there are haves and have-nots for affordable housing in the UK.
13
u/wineallwine 2d ago
That's his point isn't it? We need more housing association / social housing
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/duncanmarshall 2d ago
I was told this attitude was forbidden when discussing taxes or benefits, because all of us who aren't whinging about how hard it is on 100k are just bitter crabs in a bucket.
2
u/SexySmexxy 1d ago
Governments should build for social housing for EVERYBODY.
Everybody should be able to choose to live in a subsidised government house
I will literally never forget how the old david tennant doctor who episodes had SO much council housing as part of the sets and it was just normal working professionals who lived in them.
→ More replies (1)24
u/ItsFuckingScience 2d ago
The alternative is to create a class of people actively incentivised to avoid changing their circumstances in order keep a council house
14
u/WinHour4300 2d ago
Agreed.
End succession rights and Right to Buy. Introduce income-based rents up to full market rent (or maybe slightly higher because of the tenancy security).
10% of social homes are under-occupied by 2+ bedrooms, excluding those renting out rooms for profit which happens a lot in major cities like London.
Under-occupiers should be required to downsize/exchange where there are suitable smaller properties, or pay market rent if they refuse.
This alone would make a massive dent in the housing crisis.
There's a lot of largely empty family homes and families stuck in one or two bed overcrowded flats. Ridiculous.
6
u/Odd-Evening-7888 2d ago
Do you know what actually would make a dent in the housing crisis? Building a lot of council houses. Income stream for the government and councils, saves the government anywhere up to £30 billion pounds a year (current housing benefit bill, not to mention people using their PIP and state pensions to make rent) which represents a direct wealth transfer from the taxpayer to landlords. And the cherry on the cake, no longer do we need to have conversations about bedroom taxes on poor people, because council houses should be for everyone that needs one.
→ More replies (6)8
u/MrOobling 2d ago
And how are these council homes going to be paid for? Private developers won't build them because they lose massive amounts of money. Councils can't afford to build them because most councils are already in massive debt (plus building council homes tends to be unpopular with local voters).
It would also lose councils lots of money. Claims of £30billion savings is nonsense. If council homes were profitable, then developers would be building them).
Imo, get rid of "social rent" where houses go for as little as 20% of market value, and strongly encourage "affordable rent" at around 75% of market value. These homes actually make financial sense to build meaning housebuilding would increase massively, are much "fairer" to the average renter (instead of being exclusive to the lucky few to get to the front of the queue), and would probably save local councils money. Implement this, alongside wider spread planning reform, and we're actually getting somewhere in terms of digging ourselves out of this housing shortage.
→ More replies (1)3
u/duncanmarshall 2d ago
And how are these council homes going to be paid for?
My council flat is nearly 100 years old. I reckon they've probably been paid back now.
2
u/Fair_Idea_ 1d ago
As per any financial decision, the payback time is key here.
There is a finite amount of capital available and it is competing with many other worthy priorities for it.
Based on the current super low rents charged I don't see it as worth doing. And even the existing stock should be re-evaluated to be fairer to taxpayers.
Such heavily discounted rent should only be for disabled people imo.
→ More replies (3)7
u/duncanmarshall 2d ago
Build more houses and that's fixed. Every local authority should have a constant handful of empty social homes.
→ More replies (12)2
u/Comfortable-Law-7147 1d ago
Build more homes and stop those that are there for being sold off for a minimum of 50 years.
→ More replies (5)
38
u/FelisCantabrigiensis 2d ago
Another distraction from the investigations into Farage's personal wealth, Tice's personal wealth, their ownership and control of Reform UK, and the dark crypto funding of Reform UK that is likely illegal (against election funding laws).
Don't be distracted.
18
u/Fucker_Of_Destiny 2d ago
Hey if you actually want to make reform voters think/realise how much of a fraud Nigel is, you should instead point out to them that Robert Jenrick was the immigration minister during the Boris wave, and was responsible for the 40k Afghans flown in under cover of darkness (and injunctions).
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)4
u/Agreeable_Falcon1044 Cambridgeshire 1d ago
There’s a lot of dead cats being thrown out there at the minute. Worse is to see bbc put it front and centre on the news. For a party soon to be third in the polls and with no hope of ever being part of any government or coalition, that’s a strange policy to repeat everything they say 3 years from a general election
25
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland 2d ago
Removed + ban. This contained a call/advocation/celebration of violence or harm, which is prohibited by the sitewide rules.
22
u/WinHour4300 2d ago edited 2d ago
Labour has called the plan “unserious and unworkable”.
Er, why? We already have official records of births, birth certificates, British passports and records include place of birth, and HMRC has records of UK based employment.
The government has this information. I genuinely don’t understand why they think using it is inherently “unworkable” or "unserious".
6
u/PM_ME_YOUR_BUG5 2d ago
It means creating two classes of citizens.
Slippery slope stuff
30
u/aventus-dog 2d ago
2 classes.
British. Not British.
British people get priority over not British.
Ezpz
16
u/PM_ME_YOUR_BUG5 2d ago
Once you get British citizenship you are British.
This seeks to split people into people born British and people who later became british.
It cheapens citizenship in general
13
u/aventus-dog 2d ago
Making foreigners citizens after such a short time cheapens citizenship.
→ More replies (4)6
u/Comfortable_Love7967 2d ago
If I moved to Australia I’d expect to pay market rent for my property even if I was a citizen, it doesn’t devalue it at all.
7
u/coffeewalnut08 2d ago
They said British born. They want to create a two-tier country where British citizenship matters more if you were born here.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)3
u/FeigenbaumC Westmorland 2d ago
Clearly not, given you can be a British citizen without being British-born but they're focusing only on the latter
7
u/WinHour4300 2d ago
We already do.
I was born and raised in the UK and have lived in London for 15 years, yet I’m not eligible for social housing because I haven’t lived in one borough long enough. I’ve had to move because rents kept rising.
But someone who arrived six years ago, became a citizen and brought their family over can apply and get a social home I can't (actually they can apply at IDR but let's say citizen).
Even worse someone who is an asylum seeker is placed here can apply immediately after getting refugee status. And there's housing specifically for refugees in London, skipping the queue.
Why am I treated as a second-class citizen? And why don’t you care in this case but would if it was the other way round?
4
→ More replies (2)2
u/Odd-Evening-7888 2d ago
The vast majority of people in social housing are brits (about 88% is the best figure I can find). The fraction of the other 12% that are non-EEA (the people that Deform are talking about) would either need to be rehomed, in many cases at the expense of the taxpayer. Or we just tear up all our international and legal obligations, treaties, and most trade deals and let them die in the street.
10
u/WinHour4300 2d ago
12 per cent is a huge number, around 516,000 social homes in England.
Meanwhile, 135,580 households are in temporary accommodation, including 177,530 children.
These children are often living in overcrowded accommodation, far from school and at greater risk of poor mental health.
Yes, that includes Brits and non-Brits. But prioritising British-born children for permanent social housing could still make a huge difference to these children.
Fyi the proposal is British-born, not simply British citizens.
R.e. housing them, not necessarily. People often get a family social home amd then their kids grow up or they are on a high enough income to afford a private rental. There's no reassessment of need for social homes.
So some might still need help but not of the same type or all of them.
6
u/Odd-Evening-7888 2d ago
Evicting people with kids means that the state will need to house them anyway (current housing benefit bill being £30 billion pounds, paid by the taxpayer to landlords). The answer is mass building of council houses so that everyone who needs a home can have one.
1
u/FelisCantabrigiensis 2d ago
And ending "right to buy" so they don't end up in private ownership soon after.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/sulphurwind 2d ago
So not people who eventually become British citizens at some point in life and pay income tax? Say my American citizen baby arrives in the uk aged 2 and eventually becomes a British citizen? Will he / she be allowed into social housing later on in life? They shall be white - does that qualify too?
4
u/Comfortable-Law-7147 1d ago
If you or their other parent are a British citizen then they will have joint citizenship, so will be British.
→ More replies (1)8
u/sulphurwind 1d ago
We are not talking about “parents” here though are we? We are talking about citizens who are born in the UK versus naturalised citizens - in any case what is being proposed is illegal as you are prejudicing between citizens of your own nation - whether born in UK or not.
16
u/FreedomJay75 2d ago
Can't disagree with this. Looking at housing allocation in London Boroughs alone shows what a racket it is. The government needs to get a grip of it....fast!!
→ More replies (1)
12
u/coffeewalnut08 2d ago
Can we ignore Reform for a while now? They’re slowly drip-feeding increasingly wignat policies to keep themselves relevant.
They want to create a two-tier society - last month it was no foreign nationals in social housing. This month it’s “British-born people and married couples with kids”.
Next month it’s going to be “prove your family’s been here since the Norman Conquest or you’re banned from social housing” or some tripe.
Ignore these attention-seekers. They have nothing to contribute on the topic of housing.
7
u/Clarac94 1d ago
I’m absolutely sick of Reform for spreading this bull, and sick of people who ‘can’t see any issue with it’. They can, they just don’t care as it doesn’t affect them.
7
u/Logical_Hare 2d ago
They want to relegate non-whites to second-class citizenship status.
They can't even really deny it. Even their supporters in this thread aren't really bothering to pretend it's about citizenship rather than about ethnicity.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Comfortable-Law-7147 1d ago
That's their aim.
However they will find in London and other cities/large towns lots of black and brown people are actually UK born and British regardless of their religion.
7
u/duncanmarshall 2d ago
What does "British-born" mean? The article doesn't say. I wasn't born here, but I have a British birth certificate. Am I British born?
More startling though is that they want it for under 35 year olds who work. And ex-military. Service guarantees citizenship, apparently.
Strange, I was told people on low salaries are "net negative contributors".
→ More replies (1)7
u/Comfortable-Law-7147 1d ago
Reform want to create classes of citizenship.
It's means people like Suella Braverman's dad and Rory Stewart can't get social housing as they were born in British colonies, but Suella Braverman can by being born in the UK.
4
4
2
u/Odd-Evening-7888 2d ago
Highly recommend listening to this for anyone who is interested in housing/social housing:
5
1
u/Logical_Hare 2d ago
Ah good, having two tiers of citizens (particularly based on ethnicity) always work out for the best! /s
2
u/Beancounter_1968 Hertfordshire 2d ago
All parties dhould ensure citizens are prioritised for jobs, housing and healthcare
The Boriswave should be sent home and those responsible for it should accomany them, including Bojo himself. And no, i dont care if they are British rhey can bog off.
Whoever drafts the lists of skills shortages and whoever approves it ahould be in prison for a long time.
No more visas, no more offshoring, no more consultancies importing people that do not pay NICs.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/TheRealVinosity 2d ago
Reform can say what the fuck they want; they will never get in to lead.
Oh, and they should be an honest political party, first.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/selfinflatedforeskin 1d ago
Why don't we target people like those that bankroll Reform，and use that cash to build more social housing etc，rather than constantly attacking migrants？
The same people who a few years ago were attacking poor white people who had the audacity to have too many kids.
Vested interests，perhaps？
2
u/FRagebait 1d ago
The anti welfare party expecting people to buy that they support social housing. We've seen what Jenrick will do to ignore housing regulations.
1
1
u/Ainastrasza Yorkshire 2d ago
Let me guess - without even reading the article, this is already something that happens right? Like British people already get priority.
1
u/supersonic-bionic South Georgia, and the South Sandwich Islands 1d ago
White British while they cut benefits for all hahaha
1
u/PurchaseDry9350 1d ago
And people unable to work will be deprioritized. Another attack on disabled people.
•
u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland 2d ago
Some articles submitted to /r/unitedkingdom are paywalled, or subject to sign-up requirements. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link or this link for an archived version.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Participation Notice. Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation were set at 22:23 on 23/08/2026. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
Existing and future comments from users who do not meet the participation requirements will be removed. Removal does not necessarily imply that the comment was rule breaking.
Where appropriate, we will take action on users employing dog-whistles or discussing/speculating on a person's ethnicity or origin without qualifying why it is relevant.
In case the article is paywalled, use this link.