Most people probably assumed that subletting a council house was already a criminal offence. Even a lot of people who do it probably thought that until today.
But those MPs who are banging on about well-to-do people (although a lot poorer than Conservative MPs) living in council houses, where they might have lived for decades or even all their lives, have been expressing one of the most pernicious myths of our age, namely that public provision is only ever "a safety net for the poor". Once that point has been conceded, they do not intend to stop at housing. Therefore, we must not concede the point.
Some of them, including even the Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, have even made the ludicrous statement that council houses were only ever built for the destitute. They were not. They were built for the working class, an entirely different category. And even then, they were never supposed to be exclusive to one section of society. From time to time, one hears the eye-wateringly ridiculous statement, always uttered as if it were self-evident, that no one should be living in a council house if they have a job!
David Cameron bought a third house which he did not really need, but that is his business. It is not even our business that he took out a mortgage when he could perfectly easily have afforded to buy outright. But what is our business is that he charged that mortgage to us. When, say, his children leave home, or perhaps he becomes even richer than he already is, will there be any chance that he might be evicted, and his publicly funded house allocated to someone else? If not, then why should that be done to anyone else, either directly or, by means of forcing them to pay "market rent", by stealth?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While there's deals to be done and profit to be made from the transfer of the provision of housing from public to private then these myths will expound. The prize is too big for fact and reason to taint the argument.
ReplyDelete