Housing/health
Birmingham tenants give two fingers to New Labour privateers
by Geoff Smith (Birmingham Defend Council Housing, personal capacity)
Council tenants in Birmingham have recently thrown out plans drawn up by the city’s ruling New Labour group to "transfer" nearly 88,000 municipally owned flats and houses over to a group of eleven supposedly ‘not-for-profit’ Regi-stered Social Landlords.
Such a move – which would have effectively meant privatisation by another name – was not simply defeated in the required tenants’ ballot, it was positively routed by a majority of more than two to one (66.8% against the transfer with only 33.2% in favour).
This is a welcome hammering for New Labour’s pro-privatisation agenda, not least as it came in one of the largest authorities in the country. rid with all eyes on Birmingham following the disappointing vote for transfer by understandably desperate tenants in Glasgow, this result must stand out as a beacon to all who want to oppose New Labour’s bankruptcy.
The struggle to oppose stock transfer in Birmingham was led by Defend Council Housing (DCH), a body with a national profile and a fair amount of Socialist Workers’ Party influence.
With the support and involvement of individual tenants, tenants’ groups and the trade union movement (especially UNISON and UCATT), DCH campaigned tirelessly for a vote against transfer and also for government investment into the much-needed renovation and extension of social housing.
Greasing the palms
No expense was spared as far as the New Labour council was concerned and, had a "yes’’ vote gone through, at least £36 million of housing rent money would have been spent greasing the palms of various greedy money merchants seeking to "advise" the housing department on how best to push the transfer.
Even with a "no" vote, at least £13 million of tenants’ rent money has been squandered on an attempt at a slick pro-transfer campaign. Indeed, according to Dennis Minnis, who, for the moment at least, performs the somewhat pretentious function of "Cabinet Member for Housing", the Royal Bank of Scotland "...was queuing up to lend Birmingham City Council money".
Such a dubious boast certainly lets the cat out of the bag regarding privatisation and goes hand-in-hand with the payment of over £17 per hour to misguided housing staff to go out and conduct a scabby, pro-transfer campaign (where, to their credit, most UNISON members refused to collaborate).
This is where half-baked propaganda was pushed claiming a future paradise for tenants provided they voted "yes". UNISON activists in the housing department will no doubt remember the £17 figure next time pay rises are to be fought for!
Legitimate grievances
Many Birmingham tenants have legitimate grievances regarding years of under-investment and housing mismanagement (by Tory and Labour run councils) and a lack of repairs to their homes.
However, despite being bombarded by a small forest’s worth of glossy pro-transfer literature where economy with the whole truth was the order of the day, tenants showed the New Labour privatisation mob the proverbial two fingers!
The campaign to secure public investment into the much-needed modernisation and extension of social housing must be stepped up both locally and nationally. Writing off social housing debts with no strings should also be fought for.
With the possibility of even this New Labour government pushing through a bill to make central funds available for the regeneration of council housing by the year 2004, the pressure needs to be kept up.
Brazen opportunism
The Birmingham experience showed clearly that brazen opportunism is alive and well, when it is remembered that Liberal Democrats and Tories claimed to be opponents of stock transfer. However, bourgeois forces cannot be trusted and when Lib Dems in the city claimed to oppose transfer, they were never prepared to answer "awkward" questions concerning how the same party nationally has been promoting transfer in Sheffield, Stratford upon Avon, Liverpool, Walsall and parts of London.
Similarly, the Tories in Birmingham only "opposed" stock transfer because, true to form for the senior capitalist party in Britain, "the figures in the business plan did not add up"!
In such circumstances, it is surely vital for socialists and all class fighters to point out that cross-class alliances tie the working-class to the various representatives of capital and class independence is a must.
Unfortunately, the majority of those involved in Birmingham DCH saw nothing wrong in providing the leader of the Liberal Democrats with a platform at several public meetings organised by anti-transfer campaigners.
The SWP were up to their necks in this dangerous business, habitually referring to the Lib Dems as "our united front partners" and sundry nonsense. It does not require a genius to work out how our class enemies will repay us after being allowed to use our platforms in order to pretend to oppose housing transfer in front of concerned tenants faced with an utterly bankrupt Labour Party and with local elections looming!
Good hiding
The lessons are clear. Birmingham tenants have given New Labour’s housing sell-off plans a good hiding. However, any one of the mainstream parties could take charge of the city with Labour being so discredited, and alternative plans for housing privatisation could result.
Despite an admirable commitment by genuine DCH activists, weaknesses in the campaign could have posed problems had much of the city council’s propaganda not been so hilariously contradictory.
The best way to prepare for the future is to pursue decent class politics which seal off the rotten opportunists of the Liberal Democrats and Tories. If DCH continues to function locally in the future a radical transformation of its activities will be needed.
Proper debate must be permitted inside any ongoing campaign and not frowned upon as was the case in the run-up to the ballot. Similarly, minutes of each meeting must be properly kept and adhered to. More tenants and active trade unionists need to be involved in ensuring everything is done to secure a massive injection of public money for social housing investment.
And the Socialist Party must abandon the petty sectarianism it displayed in effectively boycotting the campaign in the ten months which preceded the ballot.
Similarly, the SWP must be challenged to break from its quite scandalous cosying up to the Lib Dems and groups such as Socialist Outlook and Workers’ Power need to recognise that they were both seriously mistaken in limiting their involvement in the campaign thus far to some relatively belated estate leafleting.