Regardless of whether an academic theory of uncertainty is correctly applied or not here, the issues still remain.
1) That RTB 1 didnt replace on a 1 for 1 basis
2) That RTB 2 which is RTB 1 repackaged with an assurance of a 1 for 1 replacement isnt going to happen.
The impact on housing supply is that social housing capacity will reduce further without such a replacement and exacerbate the problem which is already of critical importance.
Further - regardless of what John Prescott thinks about it, EdM stated RTB was a good thing at last Labour conference and until Labour's view ever changes on that what JP thinks is frankly irrelevant.
I could use very colourful language as to why RTB is wrong in theory and practice and give very reasoned argument why RTB2 will fail. Yet it is not needed as RTB2 doesnt stack up financially, it cant work based on current plans and that is suffice.
However in summary, what is the point? If EdM is so publicly behind RTB he wont challenge RTB2 will he? So its here to stay despite its many huge flaws and despite the damage it will mean for the UK ecconomy in apolitical economic terms.
Oh and of course despite the fact that Shapps issued a purported consultation on RTB2 with six options (4 of which would or could see discounts higher than 50%) yet Shapps ruled out any discount higher than 50% head of and during consultation.
That is the real issue. Its one of despotism in political democracy terms which is made especially unpalatable by the fact that it cant stack up financially. In that regard its a higher level of gerrymandering and vote rigging than the original RTB.