For every “slum landlord” case there is one where a family is living in their own home, or subdividing the back section off for a new home to be built, which is hardly going to be occupied by slum tenants.

Labour’s introduction of income-related rents and the increase to the state housing stock was a key move to address the situation of these families either by giving them good affordable housing or providing the competition with the private landlords to force rentals down.

However, I don’t think the housing stock was probably increased enough (shortage of builders was one reason)to get rid of the rented accomodation that Chris describes.

Slum rental accomodation still exists and we need to look at strategies to get rid of it.

Of the large number of houses sold off in the 1990s, insufficient mechanisms were put in place to ensure that the very thing you saw, didn’t happen. It happened on a large sclae and made some people very rich off the back of some unfortunate suffering.

Home ownership is an obsession in this country that I don’t understand, in any case, a house is not an asset until you have nothing left to pay on it. Why don’t we focus on developing income, owning assets of whatever form? Until that time, the time when the mortgage is repaid, the bank owns it. Pushing mortgages and fuelling debt through this scheme to my mind is irresponsible. Arguably, it is about shifting the onus from government on to the people in question.

State Housing is something this country should be proud of, it is part of what we have come to expect as part of the social covenant our country has with its government.