Populism and Council Housing. posted by Richard Seymour

Dead Men Left wrote some time ago of the overwhelming votes against stock transfer of council houses in Tower Hamlets. A few things that stood out were 1) because of the spate of 'No' votes, the tenants of Ocean Estate in Stepney were to have their vote postponed because of the 'mood' on the estate; 2) the victimisation of Eileen Short, who has been sacked from her job despite an unblemished record because - one suspects - she is publicly and vociferously opposed to the stock transfers; 3) the local Labour authority is terrified, correctly, of losing out to Respect, which has been actively campaigning for a 'No' vote on the effective privatisation of council housing.

Helene Mulholland writes on much the same themes in The Guardian today:

New Labour has a manifesto pledge to repair council homes to decent standards by 2010, but it will only release the necessary investment to achieve this to local authorities that relinquish control of their housing stock. Despite a motion passed at two consecutive Labour party conferences calling for a "level playing field" on funding for councils, the government has twice refused to implement the party's democratic wishes.

Many tenants prefer to stay with their accountable council rather than an unaccountable alternative. They don't want their homes to switch hands and believe such a move would threaten the long-term security of tenure and rent levels. Defending council housing has proved an eye-opener for all concerned. A report published last year by the local government regeneration agency revealed the tactics being used. As part of plans to transfer properties on the rundown Ocean estate in Tower Hamlets to a housing association, "housing partners and community leaders will also work to undermine the aims and integrity of those campaigning against the transfer", the document stated.

Well, some of those tactics appear to have included the farcical 'protest' by HARCA, a 'social landlord' looking to run the Lansbury Estate. They turned up with placards and all, crashed a Defend Council Housing meeting yelling abuse and so forth, and got sufficiently rowdy that the organiser called the police. As Dead Men Left says "it struck me as a classically New Labour manoeuvre: a completely simulated 'movement' papered over the atomisation of social and political life New Labour strive for." Other such tactics include re-running the vote if you didn't like the first result, with intimidation and threats of legal action.

Mulholland adds:

The future of home ownership has become a test case for the government's mantra of choice, and highlights the limits to this boast. But there is a sting in the tale. The failure of councils to respect tenants' wishes is delivering votes to other parties. In Tower Hamlets, 12 council seats are expected to be lost to Respect in the local election. And this is one ballot that cannot be delayed because of the "mood" of residents.

Quite how well Respect will do in these elections I can't judge, but there does seem to be something of the old 'populism' bogeyman in the council's moaning about the 'mood' on Ocean Estate. The Liberal Democrats in Sefton accused the DHC of frightening people "to death" with "misinformation". There were also a gaggle accusations about 'intimidation' - from whom and against whom was never specified, but the implication was allowed to malinger, without evidence. Naturally, the supposition is that outside agitators are disrupting a perfect harmony of opinion and the free exchange of professional, unbiased information between the local council and cooperative tenants. However, worked into a lather by the agitators, the tenants lose all reason and vote against their benign representatives. Clearly, something eeeeevilll must be afoot. Evidently, we must re-ballot. And so, the local government - encouraged by the national one, and supplied with immense resources - resumes the burden of explaining to the easily led exactly what's best for them. If and when Respect takes Tower Hamlets, doubtless it will be put down to demagoguery, populism etc. If the working classes must be allowed the franchise, even though their brains are surely too poor and tired with their daily concerns to properly engage in civil society, then they need to be protected from the insinuating voices and "boilerplate rhetoric" of "firebrands".