Yes, I did. You seem to have a problem with that.

1) Same old lies again I see. Keep pounding out that lie, which shows you’re after ALL social housing, not just London’s. I understand the fact of revenue-making assets just fine thanks, and why you’re opposed to the Government having them!

2) Right, evict every social tenant, and sell it all off to rich people to let. There isn’t an actual market in housing, of course, because of 34 years of under-building houses, it does not respond to market changes.

You would “prefer” people to be paid even less, check, because they’d now have to commute INTO London, and hence would not get London living weighting to their salaries.

c) Keep talking about your “right” to purge the poor from London, as you spew nonsense hate about social housing. YOU are demanding that far more working-class people live outside London and longer commutes.

d) Ah, you’re going to actively murder people you force out, nice. Quite apart from the fact you are against all social housing per your statement of principles, you are ignoring the effects of what you call for.

And you want to compensate by building slums in jobless areas. Wow. Such an option! Gotta make sure there’s a perpetual underclass to justify those benefit cuts, after all eh?

Your self-admittedly irresponsible course of job destruction, homelessness and attacking the vulnerable…

Did you read anything I wrote? Or do you just spew your nonsense at any available comment.

a.) Social housing is subsidised in London. It is written into the rent contracts. You are a fool if you believe otherwise, and a further fool because it means you do not understand the concept of council housing.

b) Remove social housing in London and allow the market to work. I would prefer toilet cleaners to get paid their true market salary, rather than a lower salary which the current system perpetuates and allows employers to get away with.

c) Lots of people have to commute from far away to work in London. It is no-ones ‘right’ to live next to their work place. Social housing pushes the rent market up for all. This means more working people have to live further out of London and so have a longer commute to get to work, in order to generate the taxes to subsidise your favoured group to live in London.

d) Again read what I wrote. No-one will starve on the streets. I am against social housing in London, not social housing in principle. The choice is not: social housing in one of the most expensive & densely populated places in the world Or no social housing.

The third option is you provide social housing in cheaper, less populated areas outside of London.

Ah, the old lies that social housing is “subsidised” start up again, demanding that poor people be purged from anywhere with jobs, etc, that communities be smashed and people thrown into utter dependency on the state when anything goes wrong for them because they no longer have a community.

Keep ignoring 34 years of insufficient house building as you try and demand that the poor all commute for hours (which is often unaffordable, in any case, or people end up for 3 hours each way on the bus because the train’s too expensive) to clean your toilets. Then you ignore the lack of a living wage, which is the real subsidy…

No, the result of your policy would be massive job losses and a massive increase in poor people having to spend hours travelling for work, no more.

However the social housing debate has been muddied by London. There should be no social housing in London. People who support this are absurd and shift the thrust of the welfare state from supporting those in need, to one which supports favoured groups. This in turn sullies the concept of the welfare state.

So this is the current system:

1.) National tax receipts pay for favoured individuals to be subsidised to live in one of the most expensive areas of the world.

2.) This is largely done through the government privately renting in the market, and placing council tenants in private property. This pushes up rent for everyone. Working people now have to live further away from London & commute in, so that they can pay taxes to support social housing in London.

3.) This system also subsidises business that employ low-skilled labour e.g. your local fried chicken shop. These businesses can pay their workers below their true wage because the government is picking up the cost of their rent. Without social housing there would be a true market wage for employees of such businesses.

4.) I do not have the ‘right’ to live in Belgravia or wherever. The long term unemployed do not have the right to be supported by the working tax payer to live in London. Yes we have a responsbility to provide a roof over their head, but certaintly not in London whilst working people have to commute in from further afield. It is absurd