I don't think its cost effective to focus on a handful of people and pursue expensive legal action to evict them once they earn over a certain sum. I don't actually like the idea of rich people taking council housing per se, but 'rich people' won't get access to it; they rarely did in the past and don't do so now. I worked for Lewisham Council in the 80's and recall hefty limits placed on peoples income levels before they were eligible to apply for Council housing as well as a cap on savings of £16k. This extended to housing association accommodation when this also was allocated through local authorities.

There are currently no upper limits on income for existing tenants. There probably should be in the longer term, but as I said before, we don't also want council estates to be sink estates which house only those on low incomes and on benefit. Mixed communities have always been on the agenda of most governments and I think thats a good thing. It might make sense to impose new limits for future tenants but I do suggest that the few existing ones are left alone as it would cost a lot to remove them. I understand also that without housing benefit subsidy, Council and housing association rents are actually fairly high in any case and it takes a certain salary to support these. Its some time since I worked in the lettings field but I do recall in the early 90's letting a newbuild family house for £400 per month in Southwark amidst discussions of placing people in the poverty trap.

robin orton and brian clearly want to deflect the argument away from the Royal Family without attempting to justify why on earth we should be funding these events and bank rolling these people. Please can they do so as you simply cannot berate people on £100k on milking the system whilst there are multi milliionaires around who've been doing it for years. If its the 'same old story' from me, its the same old silence from them.

If people want to live their lives through a soap opera there's always Coronation Street. No pun intended. My preferred outcome in respect of royalty is that they exist but cost us substantially less and that people take a more hardened view of them as they tend to do in most European countries that still have a monarchy. Its a matter of national subservience here that seems to fit in with and shape the British character.

That to me is realistic and a starting point. There persists in the country a view that these people have a moral right to have financial and societal superiority over us. Save your moral indignation for them and those bankers that jgdoherty reminds us about.

Michael, I agree that fairness ought to be the focus of this government but not just on this issue. They seem to have neglected this aspect on everything else.