Prime minister David Cameron thinks that council house tenants who earn over a certain amount should no longer have security of tenure. So council house tenants who make a success of their lives would be punished by being kicked out of their home!
This stupid and mean-minded plan destroys aspirations; why bother striving for success when if you do succeed, the government will kick you in the teeth?
Not surprisingly, even some Tories object to this idea:
Nadine Dorries said reviewing tenants’ need for state-owned accommodation every five or 10 years could act as a disincentive to getting better-paid work.
Instead, those who did improve their circumstances should be given the right to buy their properties and taxpayer-backed banks asked to find ways to finance the construction of replacement social housing, she suggested.
Ms Dorries told BBC Radio 4’s Today: “I’m delighted that the Prime Minister has opened a serious debate on council housing. It is the first time it’s happened in 13 years.
“(But) we have 1.8 million people who need council houses now. I don’t see that reviewing new council house tenants in five years and if their situation has improved moving them on, is going to do anything to deal with the problem we have today.
“If we are going to support families then the bedrock of families is the family home and I do not think that saying to people ‘in five years’ time you might lose your home’ is a good way for people to try to improve their lot.
There is a shortage of council houses — which is why waiting lists are so long. But the solution to this isn’t to evict existing tenants, it’s to build more council houses. Houses are cheap to build, about £50,000 if build by traditional methods, or about half that if they are mass-produced in factories (perhaps out of shipping containers).
How much money would this cost the taxpayer? Nothing, because the rents from the houses would more than cover the cost of building them. In fact, the taxpayer would save billions because the Housing Benefit bill would be less.