Perhaps it's just doing a favour for his pals in the Labour Party but David Orr from the National Housing Federation shouldn't be saying things he knows aren't true:
“However, the idea of selling off social housing in 'high value’ areas to build more in cheaper areas is fundamentally flawed.
“It could effectively cleanse many towns of hard-working people who simply can’t afford the high prices of buying or renting privately.”
I know this statement is nonsense because the houses of Nat Fed members are filled mostly with people who aren't working. I've sat in meeting after meeting where I've heard the words "most of our tenants live on benefits". Take a look:
Not only does this show how things changed from 1981 but it also reveals the lie in David Orr's statement. Three-quarters of social housing tenants (in 2006 but I can't believe much has changed since) are not working. So selling off social housing in high value areas clearly won't "cleanse many towns of hard-working people". It might mean fewer old people, fewer single mums and fewer folk who are too ill to work but it won't mean fewer hard-workers. For those hard working people are living in private rented housing since the allocations system gives preference to those with particular vulnerabilities. And David Orr knows this.