A new Labour project for government must call upon both its major traditions - mutual as well as Fabian - to create an attractive synthesis, writes Kevin Gulliver.
Kevin Gulliver is the director of Birmingham-based research charity the Human City Institute and chair of the Centre for Community Research; he is writing in a personal capacity
The future of the Labour Party has centred recently upon an ‘either-or’ debate between burgeoning Blue Labour, emphasising empowerment, localism and dispersal of power, and more traditional supporters of state intervention and action, usually associated with the Fabian Society.
Yet in reality, a new Labour project for government must surely call upon both its major traditions – mutual as well as Fabian – to create an attractive synthesis challenging the Conservatives’ false dichotomy between the ‘Big Battalions’ of the state and ‘Little Platoons’ of civic society.
Labour’s roots lie in friendly societies, workers’ co-operatives and trade unions, emphasising self-help and collective endeavour (pdf), and supersede the later Fabian tradition.
Labour’s renewal needs to emphasise the role of an ‘active state’ to support third sector agencies so working in concert to deliver progressive public policies; this partnership approach seems to elude the Conservative-led government resulting in interminable re-launches of its ‘Big Society’ concept.
A policy area calling out for this synthesis to be put into practice is social housing, where four million homes are managed by local councils, housing associations and other social landlords drawing on public funds for capital programmes and to support rents. Yet tenants have little say in the running of their homes or communities; instead they are often vilified using stereotypes of ‘CHAVs’ and ‘NEDs’.
While retaining state oversight through funding, regulation and audit, social housing management should be devolved to tenants and communities via mutuals and tenant management organisations thus embedding both Labour traditions in the sector.
The benefits of transfer of assets to the control of tenants and communities include higher satisfaction ratings, better housing management performance, more active citizens and higher self-esteem among tenants; answering the ‘CHAV’ charge in spades. Tenants are more than capable, with training and other support from social landlords, in managing their own affairs (pdf).
Transfer of social housing assets to tenant and community control coupled with increased investment in housing and infrastructure would enable Labour to craft a coherent and progressive housing policy for the next general election that is grounded in its historical legacy and traditions.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
23 Responses to “Two Labour traditions can come together in social housing”
Stewart Kirk
Two Labour traditions can come together in social housing: http://bit.ly/izSDfn writes @KevinGulliver
Anon E Mouse
Labour’s housing policy was a farce. Less homes were built under a Labour government than any Tory one – same with comprehensive schools and council housing.
Your problem here is the reason Blair was the most successful Labour leader in history and you completely miss his point about a big tent approach with this nonsense.
There is no natural working class Labour voter left.
The “chavs” as you describe them hate Labour because you flooded the country with immigrants putting pressure on housing and jobs and that remark is from Andrew Nether, Labour’s own man. Union membership is at an all time low and manufacturing jobs in large numbers no longer exist.
Traditional Labour heartlands are on a serious decline where in Scotland, despite the Labour gerrymandering of the system the party was crushed by the SNP. It’s so bad that Labour couldn’t even win an outright majority in Wales.
With Labour currently tanking in the polls due to the unelectable leader of the party – in fairness not voted for by either the PLP or Labour members- I think that if this is the best idea Labour activists have for a housing proposal then the party is doomed.
Finally if you cite Polly Toynbee as the answer then you’re asking the wrong question. What on earth can a toff like her, flying to her third property – the villa in Italy contribute to this debate?
Kevin Gulliver
Ideas for a progressive housing policy: "@leftfootfwd: Two Labour traditions can come together in #ukhousing: http://bit.ly/izSDfn writes".
Robert
I think it’s way top late for Labour, did anyone watch Labours care in the community on Panorama this week.
I just think Labour moved care for the sick and disabled mentally ill into the private sector and left it, to become worse then before.
Housing well yes labour has nothing to say anymore on social housing.
Blair won his election by becoming the son of Thatcher, now of course all those Tories have gone home so have a number of New labour types, why bother with the copy when the real thing is now available.
As for Union In have just decided to end my 48 years in the Union, it was a total waste of time and money…….
Ed's Talking Balls
Point of order: it’s inadvisable to reference Polly Toynbee if you want to be taken seriously.