The "bedroom tax" argument is a distraction. The real issue is, as Bob Taylor has so succinctly put it, about "providing the right new homes and making the best use of existing homes".
I would go further and say that it is about putting the right number of the right type of homes in the right places.
Unfortunately, Bob Taylor then destroys the value of his easily understandable point, by making a completely ungrounded and sweeping assessment of what housing he thinks is needed, and he gets it glaringly wrong.
The most serious and growing need in social housing is for larger homes with more bedrooms. The reason for this is that it is perfectly acceptable for a family to live in "unsuitable" accommodation that is oversized, but it is not acceptable for them to live in undersized accommodation.
That point is at the heart of this debate about under occupation.
Policy Exchange carried out a detailed study of housing needs in the social sector and produced a report identifying that for many years we have been building "The Wrong Houses". We need more larger homes to relieve overcrowding, and by allowing larger households to move into more appropriate accommodation we would produce more vacant smaller properties.
Building one new larger social home can trigger a cascade of household moves within the social housing stock which satisfies up to five cases of housing need in one go. Building more two-bed flats for single occupation by stark contrast only satisfies housing need on a one-to-one basis.
Therefore, Bob Taylor's contention that we need to build more small properties suitable for individuals is misguided. We need more large properties (which are now not being built in the social sector because of housing benefit being capped) and we need to promote more fluidity in the social housing sector to ensure that the stock we do have is being used efficiently.