The context of this 'proposal' - the commas specifically there as no concrete proposals have been forthcoming - is akin to yet more kite-flying?
To take John's point further those who may have thought they had a 'job and even home for life' may now need 'social' housing - yet another ingrained term 'social' - after all tenancies relate to people and as much as they may be treated as yet another bricks and mortar rent account, tenants are people with social needs, primarily stability that a house / roof gives.
Just because the south-east (mainly) has a chronic shortage of supply coupled with an increasing demand for housing doesnt mean the rule (law?) book should simply be thrown out with the bathwater.
Yet, whilst this kite-flying 'proposal' will probably not come to fruition, the debate raises many issues around scoial housing that do need addressing - such as how 'social' housing can operate better, how the term 'tenant' can change to not mean second or even third-class citizen and how the tiny minority of 'bad' tenants create a massive one-bad-apple syndrome for the vast majority of 'good' ones.
The enduring legacy of the right-to-buy prevails - a short-term vote winner that has stored up this massive problem of undersupply and over demand - and labelled tenants as third-class citizens in the national psyche.
Instead of further kicking social housing and tenants harder by threatening the removal of security of tenure, the 'great and the good' should be addressing how they can make the model better and include more of those that need it.