Agree with all that about not editorialising.

But.. what would be the motive behind an institutional bias within the BBC owards a status quo of European Union membership?

Possibly the best indicator of neutrality is an equal amount of complaining about bias from both sides.

Question Time – If you hear a lot of people who disagree with your views, it might be because a lot of people disagree with your views.

Further, you are now conflating lefty views with a remain preference – did you not notice that the most passionate ‘remain’ campaign came from the Government, who were – last time I checked – on the right.

I think what you mean is the BBC keep allowing people with a different point of view to John Green to speak, and you do not approve.

Now, back to my question.

..and this is why I think Corbyn is a healthy influence even though I am not an acolyte. I cannot imagine him copying a Conservative idea, on principle. The ‘P’ word.

I didn’t notice how old it was.. and it was just a coincidence that Hammond has just reiterated.

..and this, of course: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36684452

Or are the BBC just subversive fifth-columnists too, John?

Found a figure – 25 billion per year on housing benefit. BBC figures, 2015.

Figures for number of claimants are hard to get, but if we assume an average payment of £500 per month – £6,000 per year, that’s 4 million.

So even without income from unsubsidised rents the thing pays for itself (ie costs the same as the current system, with anything after being a bonus), in your 125 billion scenario, in 40 years. In my cheaper scenario it’s more like 20. HOWEVER short term borrowing requirement to cover costs will be reduced because the expense of the building is phased in as housing benefit payments are phased out. And this is without the unsubsidised segment of rents.

If we start with the 500,000, that’s 1/8th – 3 billion per year off the bill. If we can do this with council owned land – I know that is a big ‘if’ – that’s 500,000/15×1,000,000 = 33 billion. Do it at 60,000 homes per year – which I think was the ‘Corbyn rate’, that’s 8 years. 4 billion a year. Say 5 with admin costs. So you would need to borrow 2 billion a year over the 8 year program IF your 500,000 did not pay a penny in rent that did not come from the state over that period. But then after this you are only paying maintenance costs on the properties plus any interest – which would leave the state the better part of 3 billion per year better off than it is now for the remainder of the life of the buildings, all else being equal. Say 2 Billion. Which brings us back to the overall 20 year pay-off. Which is pretty standard for property investment, in fact. All this assumes NO income from privately-paid rent, which is unrealistic as people do get jobs.

The only problem it has is it’s long-term thinking – never popular.

It isn’t ‘lunatic’, just political poison as it doesn’t appear to magically produce free money in the short term, as vote-winning strategies (like right-to-buy) do.

TonyT, I have been unemployed. It was not comfortable. At all. Frankly it was ****. Making it even worse for me would not have helped me get a job. I am now paid above the average in my career and have never looked back – except to recall that time when refuting (from experience) the ‘make ’em suffer’ nonsense.