....
She is right. It's a disgrace subsidising landlords like this. ....
Whatever about the argument about it being poor value for money. There is some validity in that.
But "subsidizing" Landlords needs some context. The state outsourced its housing obligations to private market.
The private market didn't want this business. It was forced to take it, and indeed legislation was changed to force the private rental market to take this business. The Govt doesn't want this business because its difficult (not least because of the changes below) but also it doesn't have to carry the risk or the cost or difficulties with bad tenants.
The state has also distorted the market, not least through the RPZ, to make it less advantageous for small LLs, and those LL who keep rents low. It favours new LLs, and those that max out the rent, and REITs. That is because the state (along with many other countries) has commoditized housing as an investment vehicle to bring investment into the country and drive the recovery.
You also have to question way the stats on this, RTB, evictions, LL leaving the market, not transparent, and shifting metrics. Anyone would think, they don't want to look in case hard questions are asked. Maybe they just aren't interested. Also we've voted in these Govts in over and over again. No one can be surprised by any of this.