The housing minister has saisd that it maybe for the best for people to loose theri homes. Mr Healey trousered £88 K last year by flogging a flat paid for by the public purse.
No doubt the labout asperation is to have all totally dependant on teh state whiast they live the lif of a lord.
His timing was very bad, on the day figures revealed 46,000 homes had been repossessed. And it could be said he was insensitive. But he may also be right.
If people's circumstances change, and they have a commitment they can longer meet, then their mortgage payments may be a disproportionate out-going, which means their savings vanish and they get into debt before they lose their house.
vhg nob jake ditto. Thank u both for your valued contribution.
Gromi. Yes i see the point, however rubbing the noses of potential labour votors in the mud is hardly vote catching which is whath i mean by loising touch. Thank you for a thoughtou contribution, unlike some.
i understood the point he was making e.g. if you have no possible way to pay your mortgage then obviously it is much better not to have one as the state will help with benefit for housing benefit when renting etc.
that said as a politician he should have known that saying anything like this would be jumped on by the press and blown out of all proportion - its a non-story really imho
I think IggyB has made the correct point about this.
The minister's point is logicaly sound, but it is an emotive subject, and he is not best placed to make it without a good deal of clarification - which he may have offered, I don;t know i didn;lt hear him say it.