F451 - the government have not scrapped security of tenure, they have introduced a new tenure for social housing to ALLOW providers to manage their stock more flexibly. It is not compulsory and some providers have said they will not use it.
"Bridging the gap with benefit does not convert the market rent into social rent, it simply spends money"
Indeed, and what is that money immediately intended to be spent on? MORE SOCIAL HOUSING CONSTRUCTION - which is what you have been calling for.
If you pay out £2.5bn in extra housing benefit and remove £2.5bn of public subsidy to social housing providers to make their developments "viable", the net effect for the taxpayer is ZERO.
However, in the process you will have also ensured that taxpayer-provided financial support is only going to those who have a real, means-tested need for it. You will also have ensured that those who do not have a financial need for rent subsidy will be paying the same market rent as everyone else who is not "lucky enough" to have been allocated a social home.
I don't have any gods, F451, I am an atheist.
I love the idea of a "sceptic basement" - is that the name for an underground movement that disbelieves everything they are told by the government?!