It is difficult to understand the opposition to the idea of selling off high-value social housing to fund new building.

The suggestion by the Policy Exchange that the highest-value properties owned by councils or other social housing providers should be sold off when they become vacant seems eminently sensible.

According to the think tank’s report, around one in five such properties is worth more than the average home.

Surely it would make sense to realise these assets to fund a new home-building programme to help tackle the growing housing waiting list?

There are those whose knee-jerk reaction to this scheme will be to condemn it, saying it is social engineering to move subsidised housing from more affluent areas.

But what is the logic for public money being used to pay for housing that the vast majority of working people would be unable to afford?

It is much more logical to sell off such stock in expensive areas, allowing a much larger number of perfectly good homes to be built elsewhere.

The district’s biggest social landlord, Incommunities, has expressed its opposition to the proposal, saying it would put pressure on housing in other areas. But they could build as many as ten houses in Thornton or Manningham , for instance, for the price of a four-bedroom detached in Ilkley .

Surely housing some of the many families on the waiting list is more important than keeping property in a better-off area simply for the sake of political correctness?