There's been a lot of debate about housing recently. Cameron thinks that people shouldn't have a council house for life, but the Lib Dems are aghast.
Cameron's point certainly makes sense. It clearly can't be right that people who don't really need council houses have their housing costs heavily subsidised by the state whilst families in desperate need of a home languish on ever-growing waiting lists.
The idea has pretty much come out of the blue. No consultation, no debate, just a simple Prime Ministerial statement and its virtually policy - if there was ever evidence of the Prime Minister having far too much power, this is it. But most unfortunately, noone seems to have bothered to consider if there might be a better way.
For example, why not make council rent respond to incomes?
As people earn more, it is reasonable to expect them to pay more. Rents could approach private sector levels for tenants on middle-incomes, meaning that there would no longer be an incentive to stay-put, reducing waiting lists and increasing labour mobility.
An added bonus is that it could end a very serious poverty trap. When canvassing at the last election I was struck by a handful of single parents on low incomes who saw no incentive to work because nearly all of their wages went towards rent and Council Tax (it probably didn't help that I was in one of the highest rent local authorities in the country). If rents took account of incomes, it would be possible to charge a lower rent to those on the lowest incomes, removing one of the biggest disincentives to taking up low-paid or part-time work.
Got to be worth considering, surely?
