"I have long argued that the giving of offence, and even hate speech, should be a moral matter but not a matter for the criminal law. That is as true on the football pitch as on the streets. We should always challenge racism. We should also always challenge attacks on liberties in the guise of faux antiracism." Kenan Malik


Defend secure tenancies – No means test

Prime Minister David Cameron has thrown out a threat to the securityof council tenants. Cameron said he wanted to time-limit allnew council and housing association tenancies to as little as fiveyears: ‘maybe in five or 10 years you will be doing a differentjob and be better paid and you won’t need that home, you will beable to go into the private sector.’ David Cameron (3 Aug 2010)

This makes a lie of the Prime Minister’s pre-election promisesthat he would respect tenants’ rights. It follows savage cuts to Housing Benefit announced in the June budget, and threats to slash spending on public services. Even if unscripted, this new threat steps up what is an ideological attack on a fundamental principle of council housing as a pillar of Britain’s welfare state. It is the latest in a long line of such attacks on tenants’ rights. It hits at the principles underpinning the post war consensus millions of people support. Will he also say people who can‘afford’ the private market will be forced to pay for their healthcare or kids education? We need publicly-owned, secure and affordable council housingas an alternative to the high costs, risks and insecurity ofbuying or private renting.

A home, not an asset

Council tenants need and have the same right to a ‘home’ asanyone else – not just a temporary place to put their head downuntil they find something better. Good quality council housing is vital to ensure that whatever we earn everyone – and our children, and parents – has a home that’s secure and affordable. The principle that needs defending is that council housingshould be a mainstream tenure of choice, available to all whowant to rent as an alternative to the private market. The solution to a shortage of decent, affordable, secure andaccountable council housing is to build more! That would also have the benefit of creating jobs and opening up council housingallocation policies to the wide range of people who used to live oncouncil estates re-establishing mixed and sustainable communities.

No transit camps of poverty

Means testing council tenants, to force out anyone who gets abovethe bread line, would destroy communities. It would turn council estates into transit camps, undermining any kind of social cohesion.If anyone whose income rises above the breadline is forced out or threatened with rent rises, it would reduce the mixture of incomes on estates and increase the concentration of deprivation.

Means-testing would intensify the poverty trap. And differing rent levels is a crude step to bring market forces into council housing.

Poverty trap

The threat of losing a secure tenancy or having to pay higher rentswould increase the poverty trap and be a strong disincentive tofinding (better paid) work. It is wrong to force someone out of their home and into the privatesector because you judge they can afford it – they could beout of work tomorrow. Short term work and fluctuating incomesare a major cause of mortgage arrears. Means-tested benefits are already a major problem for millions in short-term or low-paid work or running small businesses, giving little alternative to flexible or part time ‘informal’ (undeclared)– and non-trade union organised – work.

More privatisation

These attacks on tenants’ rights and council housing are part of thepush for further deregulation and privatisation. Private developersand landlords want to get their hands on councils’ publiclyownedland, replace it with more high cost private housing, anddrive out those who can’t afford it. The right to a secure tenancy was won by tenants’ determined campaigning. This forced the Labour government to include ‘securityof tenure’ in the 1979 Housing Bill, which was then included in the Conservatives’ Housing Act 1980. Those who are opposed in principle to high quality public services available to all and who want everyone forced into the hands of the private market are determined to undermine and weaken the positionof council tenants. Stigmatising council housing as ‘housing of last resort’ is one method. Trying to take away our ‘secure’ tenancies or impose means testing or time limits is another.

Unemployment, on council estates as elsewhere, is the result of increasingly low-paid and insecure work. The problem of homelessness, overcrowding and long waiting lists are not caused by security of tenure, but by lack of investment and failure to build new homes. There are two million less council and RSL(housing association) homes now than 30 years ago, due to privatisation and failure to replace homes sold off. That’s why we have two million households on waiting lists.

Many on the waiting list are not judged in ‘priority need’ –they are the butchers, bakers, teachers and nurses who want a first class council home with lower rents, secure tenancies and a democratically accountable landlord. Investment in council housing is central to meeting this need.

Robbed – not subsidised

Government is robbing council tenants (not subsidising us) to the tune of £1.5 billion a year –while over the last twenty years billions of pounds of public subsidy has been poured into RSLs, and taxation has favoured homeowners and more recently buy to let landlords. The bank bailout is the biggest home ownership subsidyof all time.

Hands off our homes, our rents and our rights. Build more council homes

Cameron admitted in Birmingham that “not everyone will supportthis and there will be quite a big argument”. Simon Hughes MP and others have already warned the Government not to pursue this policy, mindful of the anger earlier attacks on secure tenure have provoked.

Tenants have fought determined campaigns against privatisationand to defend our homes and rights. This attack will provoke fury among council and housing association tenants. With the cuts in housing benefit, the Government is declaring war on tenants.

We will broaden and strengthen our united campaign. Together tenants, trade unions, councillors, MPs and campaigners have fought off previous attacks on council housing, and now the voice of protest needs to ring loud in the ear of every councillor and MP.



Norwich Rallies Against The Cuts

Around 200 people turned out on Hay Hill in Norwich yesterday to rally against the upcoming cuts in public services.

Speakers from Norfolk Coalition Against The Cuts and others called for a united struggle among working people and trade unionists to fight off the cuts which are likely to turn the clock back in Norfolk at least 20 years, and are the first ideological steps by ALL political parties to systematically break up and end the welfare state.

Stan Cullen Grant on behalf of NCAG called for immediate action to agitate in local communities and build the fight back as soon as possible, and requested the formation of an Unemployed Workers Centre financed by the unions to aid all who are likely to be savagely attacked by the cuts, the previous one having had to close due to funding being withdrawn.

In other towns and cities across the country similar rallies and marches occurred signalling the start of a movement that has potential to dwarf even the fight back against the Poll Tax. In Edinburgh 20,000 people turned out to protest.

Meanwhile news is breaking in London that councils are booking up B&B’s outside of the city as far away as Reading and Hastings for families that will be forced to move away due to the cut in housing benefit.

The ideological motivated gentrification of our towns and cities has well and truely begun.

Kings Lynn ‘Marina’ Plans Scuppered.

A cause for celebration we think…



King’s Lynn could have to wait at least another decade before work begins on its marina, it emerged last night – as opponents claimed the scheme had been kicked into the long grass.

The news is the second major blow for the town in as many weeks, after the College of West Anglia confirmed it would not be building a new campus on the Nar Ouse Regeneration Area.

And it comes days after it was revealed the future of RAF Marham could be under threat from a review of defence spending, in which five of the RAF’s 19 large bases could close.

West Norfolk Council wanted to put a 250-berth marina, along with hundreds of waterfront apartments and a hotel complex, on the town’s Boal Quay.

Consultants said a silted-up bend in the River Nar could be dredged out for a yacht basin, with lock gates separating it from the River Ouse.

East of England Development Agency officials estimated it would create 350 jobs and bring £13m a year to Lynn’s economy.

But regional development funding, which would have helped towards the cost of the scheme, has dried up because of the credit crunch. And now a report to councillors warns a shortfall the council would have to cover has increased from £4.1m to £10.4m.

Work on the scheme should wait until the economy recovers or a partner willing to fund the scheme can be found, the report says.

Council leader Nick Daubney said: “What the report does, from the council’s point of view, is refer to the economic reality. We’re saying we can’t have the marina as quickly as we wanted, because it depends on other developments that depend on housebuilding.

“Originally, we wanted it devel-oped in four years; realistically, we’re now looking at eight or 10.”

Mr Daubney said the council would continue acquiring the land it would need for the marina scheme, such as the grain silos near the Millfleet, so the scheme could eventually go ahead.

But Dr Ian Mack, leader of the opposition Liberal Democrat group on the council, said: “Looking at the report the council has issued, it’s very clearly in the deep long grass.

“I have been pressing the leader of the council for months to stop the marina development. We believe there are better ways of doing regeneration in that area than a 250-berth marina.

“It was patently obvious to Liberal Democrats that in the current economic climate it was madness to press ahead and would have cost council tax payers dear to further overstretch the council finances.

“I am angry that it has taken so long to make this decision and that so much staff time and energy has been wasted when it could have been put to better use. The Conservative leader and his cabinet have got a lot of explaining to do.”

Some nearby residents opposed the marina. Proposals to divert the River Nar through Hardings Pits – a doorstep green nature reserve created in 2004 with a £100,000 English Nature grant – brought angry protests from the Hardings Pits Community Association.

Last night, its secretary Roger Turff said: “It rather looks like the marina might now be off the radar for some time to come.

“A lot of people in Lynn are going to be grateful there’s now time for some more careful thought about it.”