ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That is just infuriating. Too much badly maintained and decrepit housing, sure- some ugly and intimidating estates, sure. But that's not the fault of it being social housing, it's the fault of it being badly maintained, badly lit, badly policed and badly managed- which is their bloody fault!
Besides which, the only reason they're able to say that Lambeth has "too much" is because after Thatcher kicked the Greater London Council to death, the boroughs inherited the GLC's social housing. In Lambeth's case, that was (IIRC) a dozen or so large estates and some smaller ones added to their roster (with bugger-all in the way of extra funding for maintenance etc, because of the rates cap).
"Too much" is relative. Of course, what some of those councillors mean is "there's enough social housing that it's a block to taking the borough further upmarket".