Behind the headlines: The strange tale of the SWP and Preston's council housing

by Defending Council Housing Tue May 11, 2004 03:51

Let's be a bit more accurate about this. "Community Gateway" is a glossed up form of stock transfer. That is transfer from public ownership to private ownership. Despite the fripperies involved, the housing stock is transferred from Council ownership to a housing association. It fits squarely into the New Labour policy of destroying council housing.

This absolves the Council from responsibility for the homes. It also attacks the idea that housing is a right replacing it with the idea of private charitable housing provision. It makes sure that no new housing will ever be built as council housing by that local authority.

As if that wasn't enough, tenants find their tenancy agreements replaced by less secure arrangements. With the change in tenancy agreement it becomes much easier to be evicted for such crimes as falling behind in your rent payments.

Tenants activists have been campaigning against the stock transfer in Preston. Respect have been recruiting its architect. I know which side I'm on.

by . Tue May 11, 2004 01:42

Comment on Indymedia UK

'Preston Housing & Elaine Abbot
10.05.2004 18:53

I think you'll find if you dig a little further that Elaine Abbot wasn't involved in privatisation.

The stock transfer scheme that Preston Council are investigating - Community Gateway - is sponsored by the Cooperative Union and the Confederation of Cooperative Housing organisations. My understanding is that it would replace council ownership with a cooperative form of organisation in which tenant control and participation was guaranteed.

Now personally I would always prefer Municipal/State ownership over co-operatives, but there are many on the left who would disagree and see co-ops as a better and more radical alternatives to council ownership that involves the tenants very little.

On the left we should be able to debate the issues sensibly, but it is rabid sectarianism of the worst kind to denounce looking at it locally. Especially when it is clear that the status quo will result in crappy housing conditions so long as the present parties are in government. The key issue is that the tenants of Preston will have the final say on whether they want to move into a co-operative organisation or stay as council tenants. In any case, inevitably, the New Labour government are dragging their feet on this alternative and it may be some time before it gets off the ground.

Certainly Elaine Abbot is well known in Preston for sticking up for the side of the tenant and opposing any kind of privatisation. So let's consider both sides of the argument.

Mike from Preston'

by Conor - SAucd Sat May 08, 2004 00:36

Galloway is a charlatan and a chancer. Any socialist grouping should be secular, but I guess the swp see this as a way of recruiting disaffected Muslim kids.

I suppose they justify it to themselves as just that, but then what do we expect from (particularly the British) swp?

Recruit
Sell the paper
Build the movement.

The movement is happening over the heads of the swp. It’s a pity, because there are some genuinely good people in there.

by Maurice Mogadon Fri May 07, 2004 16:43

Thank you all for your kind and not so kind remarks.

Let me assure Mike from the SWP (or Respect) that I did indeed read the reports in British "Socialist Worker". The Nablus incident is all very interesting, although a little reminiscent of the kind of tokenism that Councilors of all stripes engage in.

But British "Socialist Worker", like Irish "Socialist Worker" and the Respect website still fails to mention two vital things. It doesn't tell us of Councilor Abbots deselection from the Labour Party before she began her road to Damascus conversion to opposing Blairism.

Most importantly it doesn't tell us that her only contribution to politics in Preston has been to mastermind the town's biggest ever privatization scheme, a job she was in right up until Respect recruited her.

Can Mike enlighten us as to why Respect and both the British and Irish editions of the "Socialist Worker" fail to mention what are after all very important facts? Can Mike tell us if such economy with uncomfortable truths is considered an asset in a "Socialist Worker" journalist?

by mike - respect Fri May 07, 2004 16:31

i think if maurice had bothered to carry out a cursory search in SW uk he would find a proper background to the story.

She quit labour over a cynical attempt by labour to twin preston with nablus. lavellette suggested the twinning last year. labour rounded on him.

This year labour proposed to twin the two towns.

what changed labours mind?

I would suggest the local elections on the 10th of june are a major factor. lavellette does have the support of the muslim population mainly because they have been let down by labour over its support for the war and the no soloution of muslim only action will not get them far. The swp and the StWC organised and have won some confidence. hence labour trying to catch up and win some support back.

by Shitshocker Fri May 07, 2004 16:00

The SWP not overly scrupulous when it comes to grabbing hold of what looks like a chance! Never!

by SWP watcher Fri May 07, 2004 14:40

"Why would Respect or the SWP want to recruit someone whose only contribution to political life has been to try and introduce privatisation? Are they really that desperate?"

Yes they are!

Are you surprised?

by Capman Fri May 07, 2004 14:26

It took me a minute to get my head round all the stuff in the story but when I did I found it a bit fucked up. Why would Respect or the SWP want to recruit someone whose only contribution to political life has been to try and introduce privatisation? Are they really that desperate? I followed the links and it looks like it's all true, unless there are two councillor Elaine Abbots in charge of Prestons council houses. Or unless Preston Councils website is lying about it all, and neither of those options seem very likely. So whats going on?

by Philip Dee - none Fri May 07, 2004 01:48 Co Dublin

Re accurate reporting; not at all like the "Socialist Voice"...eh Maurice?....do better next time please!!

by bk Fri May 07, 2004 01:22

We stand for:

An end to the war and occupation in Iraq. We will not join any further imperialist wars.
An end to all privatisation and the bringing back into democratic public ownership of the railways and other public services.
An education system that is not dependent on the ability to pay, that is comprehensive and gives an equal chance in life to every child no matter how wealthy or poor their parents, from nursery to university.
A publicly owned and funded, democratically controlled NHS, free to all users.
Pensions that are linked to average earnings.
Raising the minimum wage to the European Union Decency threshold of £7.40 an hour.
Tax the rich to fund welfare and to close the growing gap between the poor and the wealthy few.
The repeal of the Tory anti-union laws.
Opposition to all forms of discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs (or lack of them), sexual orientation, disabilities, national origin or citizenship.
The right to self-determination of every individual in relation to their religious (or non-religious) beliefs, as well as sexual choices.
The defence of the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. Opposition to the European Union's 'Fortress Europe' policies.
We will strongly oppose the anti-European xenophobic right wing in any Euro referendum. But we oppose the 'stability pact' that the European Union seeks to impose on all those who join the euro. This pact would outlaw government deficit spending and reinforce the drive to privatise and deregulate the economy
and we will therefore vote 'No' in any referendum on this issue.
Support for the people of Palestine and opposition to the apartheid system that oppresses them.
An end to the destruction of the environment by states and corporations for whom profit is more important than sustaining the natural world on which all life depends.