THE rising of tempers at the Guildhall last night may have seemed unsavoury to some, hardly in keeping with the good order desired at a policy and resources meeting.

But, in locking horns over 'affordable' housing in Warndon Villages, councillors Martin Clarke and David Bannister at least dragged a vital city debate into the debating chamber.

The two stepped into territory which some colleagues might have regarded as taboo, an issue which - while a distance from apartheid - is going to make many more people fidget and fudge, if they allow themselves an honest thought, before it's resolved.

Unless there's a sea change in British attitudes, Coun Clarke's suggesiton that it would be too late for 'affordable' residents to fit into the Villages community misses a vital fact.

Few, if any, residents would have been attracted to their particular Huxley address if entry-level housing had been a part of the mix.

Whether Martin Clarke was trying hard not to say this, or whether David Bannister was right to infer that he did, the text of the general argument is this: Should 'poor' people be allowed to live shoulder-to-shoulder with folk who can afford a fair-sized mortgage every month?

We can ask another question: If the land in question had been earmarked for a development more in keeping with the existing stock, how many complaints would the Evening News have reported since the plans were announced? We'll leave you to answer that one.

In future, the city council says, developers will be pressured to plan affordable housing in schemes. The lesson is too late to help this time.

It's not for us to say where right and wrong lies in the issue, though we'll admit that 'not in my backyard' always leaves us feeling uneasy.

But not as uneasy as the feeling that, as a community, Worcester may be trying to avoid taking a difficult look at itself.