IT'S no surprise that so much hand-wringing accompanied last night's debate on the future of Worcester's city council housing stock. It's been that way for some time.

The relatively low turnout at the meeting shouldn't lead us to think that the rest of the council's 5,085 tenants are disinterested.

Not a bit of it. The issue is complex enough to tax the clearest thinker.

In essence, though, it would appear to have come down to this - the city's being advised to sell off its stock to a housing association because the alternatives will send it into the red.

In short, keeping homes on council books will leave it with a huge repair bill. Yet setting up an "arm's-length" company to manage it will founder on the Government's belief that Worcester simply doesn't perform well enough to be loaned the cash.

The principle that a local authority should morally be the provider of housing may be sound in theory to some but, in practice, the cost of doing so has long been crippling.

If you want proof, look again at the frightening figures on Page 3 today.

The alternative throws up its own contradiction, however. Housing associations aren't hamstrung by the tight Government rules which regulate how local authorities handle housing stock and money.

But we already know the concerns being voiced about the wildly differing rights between new tenants and those existing rent-payers transferred with their homes in a sell-off.

We suspect that there are only a handful of people reading this who are welded by their beliefs to the idea that the city council should continue as their landlord.

But we'd be surprised, too, if many more were convinced about a housing association being in control of their rent-books and the roof over their heads.

It won't be music to the ears of either, then, that it appears no one has a choice.