One of the strangest things in a time of the revival of political struggle is that you find yourself with the choice of too many things to ponder. Tonight I have decided to write about a local victory in Haringey, London on housing, regeneration and how something that appears on the surface to be a local victory on housing policy actually has wide-ranging implications for general housing policy in Britain.
The Haringey Development Vehicle (HDV) was (note the past tense) a proposal by the local council in conjunction with a private firm Lendlease to regenerate and develop part of Haringey to address the housing shortage in the area (and in much of London that is an important issue, there are large numbers of people on social housing waiting lists in many areas in London). It was controversial for several reasons: the use of council owned land to be turned over to a private developer, the lack of consultation with local residents, the failure to listen to residents’ and the local community’s concerns, the issues that much of the new housing was not going to be social housing as that is not profitable. One of the debates on housing policy relates to building “affordable” housing rather than social housing; that is you are producing housing which will be sold and financially out of reach of large numbers of people. The issue also relates to the question of regeneration as gentrification which is actually social cleansing and transformation of local communities where poorer people are shifted out to bring in those with higher incomes.
How did we get here?
There are several historical and contemporary issues that are relevant to understand the insufficiency of housing in London especially for those with low incomes, and the need for housing policy to address the situation. In its beginnings, social housing in Britainwas not limited to the extremely poor; social housing was for meant for people whose incomes were not high enough to pay private rents or buy their own homes; this is not limited to the unemployed dependent upon benefits. Wages and wage incomes of those in work often precluded them from house purchase and private rentals. There have been waves of building of social housing in Britain, some to clear out existing slums with new buildings that were safer for tenants, many of these contained community centres and gardens for a healthier lifestyle; acute housing shortages existed both at the end of the 19th and the 20th centuries. For example, following WWII, there was an acute need to replace housing bombed during the battle of Britain (and this was a reason why there was social housing in areas with rather exclusive private housing like Kensington and Chelsea for example). Under Margaret Thatcher, the introduction of “right to buy” council houses led to many council houses winding up in private hands
“The introduction of the ‘Right to Buy’ under the Housing Act of 1980 was a watershed event for councils all over the country. From the start local authorities have been able to sell off their houses, but until the introduction of the RTB they were not forced to do so. Up until this time mostly the production of new homes exceeded the numbers sold, however following the passing of this policy, the period of growth halted and began a decline. Largely it led to many of the better quality council properties being purchased by tenants who qualified for the right to buy. The number of houses managed by London’s councils had shrunk from 840,000 in 1984 to just over 500,000 by the end of the century. Another impact of the right to buy was that the majority of dwellings that were sold were houses rather than flats. So the right to buy has reduced the supply of family houses and altered the balance of council housing stock in the country (https://fet.uwe.ac.uk/conweb/house_ages/council_housing/print.htm).”
The 1980 Housing Act which created right to buy combined with decreased funding of local councils from central government money made it very hard for local councils to replace council housing.
What happened is that private housing overtook the number of available social housing in the 1960s; Thatcher’s policies curtailed not only the number of social housing units, but also the building of new social housing units. The stress on home ownership rather than ensuring that there were housing for all as part of her policies (and that these policies were not reversed under New Labour) further limited the development of coherent housing policies.
More recently, under David Cameron’s government a new “right to buy” policy with Housing Associations was initiated and his government additionally limited money going to local councils (which again made it harder for them to build housing), they were also prevented from raising council tax to increase revenues. Moreover, the fact that there are insufficient housing units and the building of housing for profit has made it harder for younger people to get on the housing ladder as wage incomes have not increased; this is especially the case in London. Finally, combine these policies with limits placed on the amount you can receive as housing benefit linked to the number of bedrooms available in apartments drove poorer people out of the centre of London; this destroyed communities where family and local support existed to help single mothers get into work. Given that social housing is now predominately for single mothers and the disabled, and those completely dependent upon benefits has meant that these policies have had a disproportional impact on women, the disabled and the elderly.
Haringey Development Vehicle
The use of public-private partnerships and private financing initiatives has not been limited to the railroads and the National Health Service under the Blair government. Regeneration schemes whereby existing social housing is destroyed rather than improved and the new housing being built has a proportion of so-called “affordable housing” which is not affordable for those that lived in social housing or local residents and that are designed to change the demographic of neighbourhoods and boroughs means that the worry about social cleansing is a legitimate concern.
The Haringey Development Vehicle ran into problems for a number of reasons. The primary reason was public opposition and the development of broad-base grass roots organising at that. The fact that the local Labour council simply refused to consult with tenants and members of the community alarmed at both the plans and the approach taken by the council to building new housing and the lack of consultation with the community and the rapidity at which the plans were moving ahead were worrying. Local campaigners raised £24,000 to fund a legal challenge and obtained a Judicial Review to try to stop the council or, at least, delay the implementation of the plan against the HDV on the basis of lack of consultation, issues of an equality review and impact and questioning the process and the right of the council to create the HDV to which the local council responded. One of the serious problems in these situations is that the developer does not have to provide what is agreed in the original plans in terms of the division between public and profit-based housing; delays and increased costs mean that they have to recoup potential losses (this often results in fewer units of social housing than agreed initially). Moreover, since this is a joint project between a private developer and the local council, changes in the housing market may affect their ability to sell the private housing and if they are rented instead of sold, potential rental revenue may not be as high as expected.
The creation of a broad based local campaign against the HDV was a problem for the council. There were constant rallies and activities to oppose the HDV; these put a lot of pressure on the local council. Opposition in the local community grows and they have support from outside the borough as well from housing activists.
An additional constraint to the Labour council’s plans was the election of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour party and the strengthening of the left in the Labour party.
During his keynote speech at the Labour Party conference in Brighton in 2017, Jeremy Corbyn raises the Grenfell Tower fire. The catastrophic Grenfell fire in which a local housing estate was covered in flammable cladding (to detract less from the view of the rich living in the area) and where local residents’ concerns about the “improvements” carried out were ignored and consultation with tenants was non-existent shifted the focus of politicians and led to the resignation of the leader and several members of the Tory council. In his speech, Corbyn also called on those doing housing redevelopment schemes to consult with tenants and members of the community that would be affected by these schemes; this is important as it was relevant for the Grenfell Tower where residents’ concerns were ignored, but it is also an important principle of the need for democracy at all levels of government. But that, in and of itself, was insufficient as regeneration was not only being carried out in Tory controlled councils, as architects for social housing said:
“[…] And high in the list of that brutality is the estate regeneration programme that threatens, is currently being implemented against, or which has already privatised, demolished or socially cleansed 237 London housing estates, 195 of them in boroughs run by Labour councils, which vie with each other for the title of ‘least caring’, and among which the councils of Hackney, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Lambeth and Haringey could give the Conservative-run Kensington and Chelsea council a lesson in disdain, privatisation, failed housing policies and the inequality they produce. But it’s good to hear Corbyn discard the Tories’ contemptuous terminology of ‘hardworking families’ and ‘ordinary people’ and finally – if belatedly – refer to the ‘working class’ (https://architectsforsocialhousing.wordpress.com/2017/09/29/the-labour-party-conference-2017-housing-policy-and-estate-regeneration/).”
Criticism of Kensington and Chelsea council for the horrific and unnecessary deaths of tenants in Grenfell Tower is essential as there was complete and utter contempt for tenants, fire safety laws and regulations have been undermined, and the needs of those living on lower incomes seems to be the last thing under consideration in housing policy; but regeneration schemes were being employed by Labour controlled councils (and the HDV is not the last one being created; in the local area where I live there are 2 projects; one of them is being planned against a local housing estate in Leytonstone, Fred Walsh and John Wigg Towers).
As agreed by the Labour Party conference, the National Executive Committee (NEC) is enlarged with 3 more constituency members; those elected to those posts are members of Momentum, the left-Labour grouping.
In May 2018, there will be local council elections. The selection of candidates is determined by within the local constituency Labour parties through the Local Campaign Forums which develop a short list of candidates. In November 2017, the candidate list for those that will run in the elections comes out. The council leader, Claire Kober, who supports the HDV is reselected along with other pro-HDV candidates to fight the local elections; concerns about democracy are raised and the selections in several seats are referred back to the Tottenham Party’s Executive Committee for investigation. This leads to a selection of council candidates in many wards from pro-HDV supporters to opponents along with several HDV supporters standing down and withdrawing from the lists. The results of the changes are significant:
“At the start of this process there were 29 Labour Councillors for the HDV and 21 against - that has shifted dramatically to only 12 for and 45 against. As the Liberal Democrats also oppose the HDV, the incoming Council after May 2018 will almost certainly no longer support the Joint Venture with Lendlease. Now we have to be prepared to stop the current Cabinet from signing the scheme before May. If they did it would be an outrage as they clearly have no mandate to do so (http://stophdv.com/labour-party-council-candidate-shortlisting-selection-meetings/#.WndLcqhl82x).”
On Tuesday, the 23rd of January 2018, the Labour Party National Executive Committee takes a vote which requests Haringey council to halt the HDV following a request by 22 local Haringey councillors asking them to act to oppose the HDV; additionally local Labour MPs, David Lammy and Catherine West had already expressed opposition to the project.
On January 30th, Claire Kober stood down as leader of Haringey Council saying that she will not seek re-election. The HDV is history! Break out the booze and cheer. But she leaves a parting gift …
On red-baiting and false accusations of sexism
Her resignation appeared in The Evening Standard (edited by Conservative and former Chancellor of the Exchequer under David Cameron, George Osborne):
“The sexism, bullying, undemocratic behaviour and outright personal attacks on me as the most senior woman in Labour in Labour local government have left me disappointed and disillusioned (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/haringey-council-leader-claire-kober-quits-in-storm-over-corbynista-bullying-a3753066.html) .”
Let’s ignore the irony of a local councillor refusing to take the demands of tenants and local community members into account, let’s ignore that the council’s own scrutiny committee published two reports calling for a halt to the project, let’s ignore the fact that there was a broad based grassroots campaign opposing the HDV. Instead it is the fault of the left in Labour and their sexism (of course, that is the implication) which has led to the situation. One cannot help but think that this is a cynical misuse of the word sexism especially in a period when there is rising feminist consciousness of “every day” sexism which women live with. This accusation looks like cheap political manipulation rather than a real situation where the council leader was solely attacked because she was a woman rather than for the policy that she was espousing.
Certainly, there is a struggle for the heart of the Labour Party between the left and moderates (but MP David Lammy who opposed the HDV is not a Corbynista on the Labour left, he is New Labour; but that is irrelevant of course). To argue that it is Momentum and the Labour left rather than a hard-fought battle in the constituency is to deny the role of grass-roots organising (but come on, we cannot be surprised at that).
If you watch the BBC, you would not even know that this was a grassroots opposition campaign. They only want to talk about the sexist Labour left. To hide behind claims of sexism rather than admit your policy is defeated by the local residents does not help the struggle against sexism and misogyny that women face every day, does it? Accept responsibility that you failed because of your politics, don’t raise a red herring that can be used by the right-wing media against the Labour Party.
Local women residents who opposed the HDV responded to her charges of sexism and lack of democracy and I will give them the final word (as they fought the battle and they should be heard):
“The Stop the HDV campaign group is a broad-based group made up of people from different parties and none. The HDV would have affected council tenants, housing trust tenants and home owners and they are all represented in the group. At least fifty percent of the group are women and they have been extremely active in the campaign; organising marches, chairing meetings and speaking on behalf of the group. We have used our democratic right to protest against the HDV, attend public meetings and speak openly about our opposition to this policy which we feel would be devastating to our community. Many women, particularly single parents, would have been adversely affected by the HDV.
Those of us who are members of the Labour party chose to support candidates opposed to the HDV in the democratic selections so that we had candidates who represent our views rather than those who think they know what is best for us. Numerous sitting councillors chose not to fight for their seats.
Many able women have been chosen to stand as Labour candidates in May.
As women, many of us have experienced sexism and we agree that no woman should be subjected to it. However, this campaign has been about Clare Kober’s attempt to impose the HDV not about her as a woman.
Ms Kober, vocal opposition to an unpopular policy which is being implemented in a paternalistic way without proper consultation is not bullying or sexism, it is democracy (http://stophdv.com/women-of-haringey-respond-to-council-leaders-decision-to-stand-down/#.WncceKhl82x).”