jgdoherty certainly puts some of this in perspective. But the article in the Telegraph that first kicked this off was referring to a Whitehall report rather than Westminster Council.

I don't see why on the face of it a household with four individuals earning £25k each needs a council house (or Housing Association property) rather than renting privately. I suspect that the vast majority of young people earning £25k per year live in private rented accommodation or part buy/part rent. I say young in contrast to most households with pensioners who will be earning less than £25k per person but they may already have paid off their mortgage. I see no reason for somebody with assets of £250k+ to automatically get a council house instead. The whole situation is complicated by individual circumstances and household size and income is just one part of the equation.

In a similar way I was appalled at the headline More than 90,000 live in 'inherited' council homes but when I think about it, I expect that most of these were one partner inheriting from their dead spouse, and I can't think of anything worse than turfing them out. But that does not mean there is not an issue (at a much lower rate) with children who have their own home inheriting a council house - that does not seem quite right.

Any change needs careful consideration, both to protect people already in subsidised housing, and to make sure the system is fair to all.