‘Labour is committed to reducing by one third the backlog of sub-standard housing by 2004, with all social housing brought up to a decent standard by 2010.’
This was the bold claim made in New Labour’s 2001 Manifesto. It was a welcome commitment; after all who wouldn’t want to see the stock of well maintained affordable housing increase? Well apparently the Housing Minister Keith Hill, that’s who. He prefers to talk about giving tenants the ‘opportunity’ to repair their homes.
This was the bold claim made in New Labour’s 2001 Manifesto. It was a welcome commitment; after all who wouldn’t want to see the stock of well maintained affordable housing increase? Well apparently the Housing Minister Keith Hill, that’s who. He prefers to talk about giving tenants the ‘opportunity’ to repair their homes.
What Mr Hill really means is that tenants will be given this ‘opportunity’ if they behave themselves, which in this context means council tenants choosing one of the government’s three preferred options: stock transfer, Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMO) or Private Finance Initiative (PFI). Reject these alternatives and there will be no money for the new bathrooms, roofs, windows, security doors, damp proofing or the many other much-needed improvements.
It’s not as if the money isn’t there; the cash has already been earmarked for the improvements. The only thing standing between the tenants and their new improved homes is the Minister’s bloody mindedness. Not only has Keith Hill torn up the manifesto commitment, he has also made a liar of the ex-local government minister Stephen Byers, a man who had previously assured council tenants who wanted to remain council tenants that they too had a right to a decent home.
And who does Keith Hill blame for New Labour’s failure to keep its word? Why the tenants of course. Bizarrely, instead of taking the votes of council tenants in Camden, Stockport, Birmingham, Barnsley and Dudley at face value—that is as votes to remain council tenants, Mr Hill believes that these are votes to remain in sub-standard accommodation. Or as the Minister put it himself when referring to the rejection of stock transfers, ALMOs and PFIs, ‘you can lead a horse to water but you can’t force it to drink,’ (The Guardian, 28 January 2004); a remark that tells us as much about his attitude towards council tenants as it does about his commitment to provide decent housing.
So why is this happening? The money is there. The policy is there in black and white. What is missing from the picture is New Labour’s love affair with privatisation, its indifference towards democracy and its active mistrust of the working class in general, and council tenants in particular.
New Labour, just like the Tories before them, believe in the tired old dogma of private good public bad; after all it worked for the railways so let’s give council housing a dose of the same medicine. It doesn’t matter if people vote against it as they obviously don’t know what’s best for them, or they are being duped by scaremongering extremists. Neither explanation displays much faith in council tenants’ ability to know their own minds and pursue their own best interests.
Will this situation change? Not unless working class communities start to get the political representation that is so clearly absent at the moment. Until then we can expect to hear a lot more lies, damn lies and broken promises from the ranks of anti-democratic, anti-working class New Labour.
It’s not as if the money isn’t there; the cash has already been earmarked for the improvements. The only thing standing between the tenants and their new improved homes is the Minister’s bloody mindedness. Not only has Keith Hill torn up the manifesto commitment, he has also made a liar of the ex-local government minister Stephen Byers, a man who had previously assured council tenants who wanted to remain council tenants that they too had a right to a decent home.
And who does Keith Hill blame for New Labour’s failure to keep its word? Why the tenants of course. Bizarrely, instead of taking the votes of council tenants in Camden, Stockport, Birmingham, Barnsley and Dudley at face value—that is as votes to remain council tenants, Mr Hill believes that these are votes to remain in sub-standard accommodation. Or as the Minister put it himself when referring to the rejection of stock transfers, ALMOs and PFIs, ‘you can lead a horse to water but you can’t force it to drink,’ (The Guardian, 28 January 2004); a remark that tells us as much about his attitude towards council tenants as it does about his commitment to provide decent housing.
So why is this happening? The money is there. The policy is there in black and white. What is missing from the picture is New Labour’s love affair with privatisation, its indifference towards democracy and its active mistrust of the working class in general, and council tenants in particular.
New Labour, just like the Tories before them, believe in the tired old dogma of private good public bad; after all it worked for the railways so let’s give council housing a dose of the same medicine. It doesn’t matter if people vote against it as they obviously don’t know what’s best for them, or they are being duped by scaremongering extremists. Neither explanation displays much faith in council tenants’ ability to know their own minds and pursue their own best interests.
Will this situation change? Not unless working class communities start to get the political representation that is so clearly absent at the moment. Until then we can expect to hear a lot more lies, damn lies and broken promises from the ranks of anti-democratic, anti-working class New Labour.
Homepage:
Comments
Display the following 11 comments