'Hand Up' versus 'Hand Out'
So the government is planning to remove people from their council houses - if they earn more than £100,000 a year.
Now the consipracy theorists say that this is a mean spritied, vindictive measure aimed at the RMT union leader - Bob Crow - who lives and always has lived in social housing in London apparently - despite now earning £145,000 a year.
But I can't see anything wrong with the government's plan - no matter how I try.
Because social housing is subsidised by the tax payer - it's supposed to be a hand-up for people who can't afford to rent or buy their own home.
Not a lifetime hand-out to people - who circumstances have changed or improved - and in Bob's case out of sight, you have to admit.
No one deserves to be thrown out of their own home overnight of course - a fair solution would be to give people like Bob Crow a year or two to move on - while charging them a proper market rent.
Surely a good socialist can see the fairness and common sense in refusing to spend public money - on a lifetime subsidy for the better-off?
Now the consipracy theorists say that this is a mean spritied, vindictive measure aimed at the RMT union leader - Bob Crow - who lives and always has lived in social housing in London apparently - despite now earning £145,000 a year.
But I can't see anything wrong with the government's plan - no matter how I try.
Because social housing is subsidised by the tax payer - it's supposed to be a hand-up for people who can't afford to rent or buy their own home.
Not a lifetime hand-out to people - who circumstances have changed or improved - and in Bob's case out of sight, you have to admit.
No one deserves to be thrown out of their own home overnight of course - a fair solution would be to give people like Bob Crow a year or two to move on - while charging them a proper market rent.
Surely a good socialist can see the fairness and common sense in refusing to spend public money - on a lifetime subsidy for the better-off?
