Planning restraint, combined with the way that housing is subsidised directly (rather than say, giving someone money to spend on building a new home).
I have nothing against the welfare state - I'd rather see a citizen's income than the nonsense mash of policies we have at present, though.
It makes no sense to me that the state should subsidise rental payments to private landlords in perpetuity. We should be building homes and relaxing planning permissions.
How is "The welfare state has created a situation in which many are simply incapable of fending for themselves" not a statement against the welfare state?
In any case, you're derailing the conversation, and my working hypothesis is that you want to talk about your feelings rather than put any interpretable numbers behind it. What is wrong with my analysis enough that it should be considered not "very useful here", which is what you stated. What is your objection?
I have nothing against the welfare state - I'd rather see a citizen's income than the nonsense mash of policies we have at present, though.
It makes no sense to me that the state should subsidise rental payments to private landlords in perpetuity. We should be building homes and relaxing planning permissions.