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.
23 Responses to “Two Labour traditions can come together in social housing”
Clare Fernyhough
I fail to see the point in these recent articles with regard to enabling and empowering social housing tenants.
If labour don’t return to power after the next election and reverse the welfare reforms concerning housing benefit and the enforced rent rises (my housing association has informed me that mine will rise by 10% every year until 2025), there will be no social housing left since only the well off will be able to afford the rents.
Where are the millions of the low paid and benefit recipients expected to live? That’s what we would like to know; no one has yet provided the answer to that.
Anon E Mouse
Clare Fernyhough – What we do know is that Labour built less houses of any type period and they have allowed this crazy situation to arise.
They then got everyone addicted to Housing Benefits which allowed greedy landlords to hike up the rents to unreasonable levels because the government was picking up the tab as these rackman parasites got richer courtesy of the taxpayer.
The madness had to end sometime and as for your rent rise of 10% a year I just don’t believe it. Someone is pulling your leg I think.
As for Labour returning to power there is no chance with the hapless Ed Miliband “leading” the party….
Ed's Talking Balls
The housing benefits reforms need to come into force before they could conceivably be undone in the future.
Along with the majority of the country, I want to see this monstrous situation changed. It’s utterly wrong that someone who refuses to work can live, subsidised by those who do work, in Kensington, Islington, Notting Hill etc, when people who work their whole lives couldn’t dream of living in such areas.
As The Telegraph once put it:
‘To put it in perspective, consider how much you would have to earn, after tax, to pay rent of £30,000 or £40,000 per year. Taxpayers are not only being inordinately generous: they are being taken for a ride’.
The coalition must have the courage to put a stop to this. I fear that it won’t.
Jeremy Corbyn
Housing is in crisis. In my part of London there are more private rented than owner occupiers. We need commitment to provide secure tenaned council homes and control, registration and regulation of the private sector. The Housing Allowance is driving thousands away from inner city Britain. Labour did well on decent homes stanadrsd but largely failed to build or buy.
Robert
Love it rents of £30,000 what a week month or year, I pay rent but as for you poor old hard working chaps, well tomorrow you might walk across the road a drunk hits you, he gets jail you get a few thousand quid in compensation, he was not insured you see. You wake up and the doctor says to you sorry mate you will never walk again, but no not worry Labour and the Tories have great plans for you, get a job.
If you really think we are all happy sitting at home with tubes stuck up our dicks while you hard working tax payers pay my rent, well sorry mate.