What a weird argument. The usual complaint is that the country doesn\’t have enough social mobility.
I\’m not blind to the awful, stomach-churning stress of living alongside tenants who believe in the right to do what they like and be protected from eviction. But transience is the enemy of community. A well-functioning community, in which people know each other and are used to getting together to solve problems, can contain the disruption caused by antisocial householders and prevent isolated incidents from turning into sustained campaigns.
Estates with high levels of social problems are the ones with the highest turnover of tenancies: they are situated in the areas of worst-quality housing, with the poorest reputations, and with the worst amenities. People are housed in them because they are desperate: they quickly realise it\’s not a good place to live and they move to better housing as soon as circumstances allow.
So we shouldn\’t have social or geographical mobility in order to make council estates better?
Recast this is the \”know thy place, peasant\” argument and it\’s as unappealing coming from Lynsey Hanley as it is from Sir Jonthan Porritt Bt, CBE, when he tells us that we should all be peasants in the fields again.
With an Old Etonian Baronet telling us what to do of course.