Quote Originally Posted by TISS View Post
I said it did not reduce the housing stock, which it did not; for each reduction in social housing stock was a corresponding increase in private housing. For each house that was sold removed the requirement by social housing by the same amount. The demand for social housing was the same before as it was after with no increase or decrease.
That's not correct, is it? You're not taking the flow of demand for social housing into consideration or taking into account new applicants for social housing.

Each year, people that live in social housing will end up not needing to. Each year, people that don't live in social housing will end up needing to.

Take the amount of people no longer needing social housing to be the same as the number of people suddenly requiring social housing. If the number of council/housing association properties remains the same, then the people who no longer need social housing (through deaths, moving to better areas etc) end up having their properties taken over by those who need them.

Suppose you sell off, say, 1000 homes and don't replace them. That means there's 1000 homes less for those who suddenly need to apply to live in social housing.