I said more landlording. Some landlording is necessary. There comes a point where it's creating a new rentier class and a new permanent underclass. I'm against rich people taking advantage of a very unfree market to get a permanent low-risk income from poor people, while ensuring that prices are so high those poor people will be kept like that forever.

I've rented the same flat myself for ten years and barring any huge changes, it's in my financial interests to do so forever, rather than buy a house. That should be the common state, but it's more expensive in many places at the moment to rent than to buy. Which suggests, to my mind, that something should push that balance back the other way.

I just think it shouldn't be very profitable. There are some things a well run state or region can be very good at (and in a number of places around the world, is very good at); maintaining a rental housing stock or other such housing programme is one of them.

not only that, but buying isn't for everyone. Not everyone plans to stay in one spot for a long time. If you cut out all renting, there aren't many more options than forcing everyone to buy a home every time they move somewhere.