Article

Social cleansing and the end of council housing

At the end of the 19th century, local authorities started building housing for the poor. They were not the only organisations to do so, charitable trusts like Peabody and co-operative societies also built homes for working class people, but the councils came to dominate housing in most districts, and particularly in the bigger cities. Though council housing produced some awful homes, and in the late 60s/early 70s municipal control of housing allowed arrogant architects to inflict their theories of brutalism on us, most of what was built (or bought) was better than what went before.

Council rents remain among the lowest, far lower than private and those of most housing associations (the successors to the charitable trusts). For 18 years the Tories attacked council housing, chipping away at it with the divisive right to buy policy, trying to get tenants to vote for different landlords, forcing competition on councils, and so on. With the exception of right to buy, all the Tory policies aimed at destroying council housing failed. (Ironically, one - ring-fencing of the Housing Revenue Account - actually benefited some council tenants as it stopped some councils using rents to subsidise rates/council tax). Tenants, when faced with the choice of the devil they knew or the devil they didnÕt, always opted for the council. Right to buy worked because it tapped into a need of tenants to have more control over their homes Ð the days of being told what colour their front door should be etc., Ð as well as appealing to the greed element. (Until the rules were recently revised, homes sold under right to buy for £10,000 or so were often worth £60,000 when sold on).

But after 18 years of surviving Tory attacks, council housing is going. As a local housing manager told me recently, Òwe survived all the Tory attacks and now we (meaning the Labour Party) are selling them off.Ó Every council which still has it is setting up one or more Òlocal housing companiesÓ to take over the stock. And for almost every local housing company, there is a tenantsÕ or workersÕ campaign fighting it.

Perhaps the most well known transfer was HARCA in Tower Hamlets, where a very narrow majority voted to transfer out of the councilÕs control. So, what do these local housing companies mean, and why are they being pushed? Their advocates say that they will be able to invest in housing, something denied the council because of rules on public sector borrowing, and that this investment will offset any other disadvantages. These other disadvantages include changing the tenure from secure to assured, which means it is easier for the new landlord to evict the tenant. Rents will rise to pay for the extra borrowing, though the apologists for these companies say they will be pegged for 5 years or so. As it means fragmenting the total council stock, it will normally mean that management costs will be higher as a proportion, and tenants will get less for their money. And many councils donÕt pay VAT, so thatÕs 17_% less their rent will buy.

One of the things all the ballots about selling off have featured is that leaseholders donÕt get a vote, even though they will be hit by huge bills for the improvements planned. Fair enough, you might think, they all made a killing out of the right to buy. Unfortunately, many of these flats have now been sold on to often quite poor people, forced to buy on the open market because so much council housing has been sold off and they canÕt get a flat. Not surprisingly, these people would likely vote no, so they donÕt get a vote.

So, as anarchists, do we want to be defending control of housing by corrupt and power-hungry local councillors? Clearly no, but we should also be clear why we are against this wave of selling off. It does nothing to further tenantsÕ control over their own housing, indeed, many housing ÒprofessionalsÓ are keen to get away from councillorsÕ interference in their work. And also, it doesnÕt address the real question Ð except in a few areas in the north, there is a huge shortage of affordable homes, particularly acute in parts of London where gentrification is going on.

To illustrate this process, it is worth looking at Southwark in South London. The council wants to clear three popular riverside estates to make way for the new London Assembly (the old County Hall site having been used in part for luxury housing). And while this was going on, the CouncilÕs director for economic regeneration (yuppification?) Fred Manson said, Òbecause social housing generates people on low incomes coming in and that generates poor school performances, middle class people stay away.Ó

TenantsÕ groups attacked Manson, saying this was about class-cleansing, and pushing the working class out. Southwark has huge areas which are just endless council estates built by admirers of East European Stalinist architecture, but there are also enclaves of the middle classes. Harriet Harman lives there, famously refusing to send her kids to a local school, preferring to make them travel an hour and a half to a grammar school in the Orpington. MansonÕs comments, though, get it arse about face, as middle class professionals often do. Where should poor people live? TheyÕve already been socially cleansed from Battersea, Wandsworth and the posher bits of Clapham (or ClaaÕm as the chinless scum who now live there call it). There just arenÕt that many choices for people Ð live close to your low-paid job, your family and friends, or move to the soul-less out of town estates.

In Hackney, the council has opted for a piecemeal approach to privatisation, but the effects are already becoming clear. On the Haggerston estate, where tenants recently lost a ballot after the council manipulated the number of homes included, the new company has already made changes. Where a tenant misses an appointment for a repair, they are charged a callout fee. Insurance has gone up by £35, and the estate cleaners have had their wages cut by at least £1000. (On some estates in Hackney the figure is more like £4000). Tenants in Tower Hamlets and Lewisham have both recently voted no to sell-off plans, and a crucial vote is coming up in Coventry, where the campaign to defend council housing is riven with factionalism. Perhaps most importantly of all, tenants need to make sure they are properly informed. Councils will spend hundreds of thousands giving a one-sided view - itÕs vital that those opposed to it get their facts right. There is the potential for damage when the SWP sends ill-informed students onto estates. Changing from a secure to an assured tenancy that contains the same clauses is really not the big deal that some people have tried to paint it.

ItÕs important for the tenantsÕ movement that it wins more of these ballots - the Labour Party are in fact considering removing the right to ballot because they keep on losing. But it is not just around sell-offs that tenants are being ignored. Workers in Tower Hamlets recently went on strike over plans to introduce a call centre and close local estate offices - after tenants had been surveyed and said no. The council argued that only 10% of tenants had responded - yet they never use that argument when only 10% of electors can be bothered to vote for whichever Tory is on offer in council by-elections.

What is needed here is a co-ordinated, nationwide campaign to extend tenantsÕ rights - not just council tenants, but all landlords. This should be based around fighting for proper consultation (rather than just information which is what passes for consultation these days); legally-binding ballots on all transfers, demolitions and sell-offs; rents to be pegged and all councils allowed to borrow to make up the shortfall in investment. Tenants will generally find willing allies among workers in housing, who are generally sick of seeing cuts in jobs and services and endless re-organisations just to massage bureaucratsÕ egos.

Contact: Defend Council Housing 0171-254 2312