The Mirror takes an interesting, if incredibly superficial look at Council housing. Of course, it is way more complicated than the story says.
For many years now Lambeth has gone down the road of diversifying its housing management stock. I think what the motivation is, absolutely regardless of political party is a genuine non-partisan desire to improve the living conditions of a large proportion of the boroughs residents. Traditionally, Lambeth's stock management was always decentralised eg with twenty or so Housing Management Offices, situated in the heart of the estates they are managing, compared with just five across Hammersmith and Fulham (at least, back in 1995 when I worked there). During the 90s a host of Tenants and Residents Associations formed themselves into Estate Management Boards, Residents Management Companies, Tenants Management Organisations etc. This was democracy in action. It was enabled by the Housing Department with a strong political steer, which realised that years of mismanagement had failed the residents.
As a side issue, in the Oval by-election of 1993 I was canvassing with Peter, our candidate at the time. He and I were well used to the rundown nature of Lambeth Estates, but one struck us as particularly bad. He engaged in conversation with one resident, an enthusiastic if passive supporter. He commented on how Lambeth had let her down, the appalling state the estate was in. Her response "Oh, we're not Lambeth, we're Duchy of Cornwall..." Peter and I were shocked. I mean shocked.
After self-management, the next step was wholescale stock transfer. It has been around for many years. In 1998 I audited a district council allegedly in the south of Buckinghamshire, who had transferred all but five properties into the private (or voluntary, I can't quite recall) sector, following a residents' vote. the five that remained were flats above a parade of shops whose residents had voted en bloc to remain with the council.
The Partington Estate, formerly a Manchester 'overspill' estate within the boundaries of Trafford was the first really large estate to go wholescale transfer. One of the reasons was that as, in effect, a whole town with a split personality, it made sense. Lambeth, like Manchester a large social landlord also attempted it on an estate-by-estate basis. One large estate in Central Brixton voted to transfer, the main attraction being that the RSL could borrow money freely on the open market, which could be spent on much needed repairs. Others declined to even get it off the ground. One of the main reasons being that RSL tenants don't have the same Right to Buy as council tenants. Also succession rights eg for unmarried, including same-sex couples, are less well-defined in many RSLs.
A major project was planned for North of the Borough to have a large-scale transfer that would finance improvements, not limited to repairs and capital investment - there was a wider regeneration agenda. An unholy alliance of LibDims and Trots scuppered it by spreading propaganda using the words 'privatisation'. Kirsty, who was Exec for Regeneration at the time was furious - the night the poll results were announced, she found young impoverished parents in tears, because they had believed in this scheme as hope for their future, only to see it scuppered by politically mismotivated carpet-baggers.
I am in a New Deal area with a ten year master plan for Regeneration. This includes demolition of some of the later-built locks, blighted by spalling concrete and flat roofs - the earlier, classic 1920s-designed LCC blocks are standing the test of time. In order to finance this some land will be sold off to developers, who will, no doubt, build Yuppie Flats, with the cachet of an SW4 postcode. Planning law means that 25% (I think) will have to be affordable - that might be RSL managed or it might be Shared Ownership. I am not certain how this will affect the number of units available for rent.
*Everybody* welcomes this initiative, *everyone* knows that some of the blocks absolutely have to go. *Everybody* supports investment in the basically sound remaining blocks. *Everybody* wants the area improved and cleaned up.
But going down the PFI route isn't the ideal solution. 'Privatisation' is an emotive, simplistic word, but one that is effective in LibDim Trotskyist Opportunist propaganda. The simple solution would be to allow Councils to borrow on the money-markets. To the limited extent that they are allowed to, they are low risk for the lenders. Why they can't borrow more is down to Economics - Local Authority borrowing counts against what we used to call the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement, but we don't anymore. And we know that high PSBR is a Bad Thing. I suppose strictly speaking, improving social housing is not an Investment-to-Save. But there is so much evidence that illustrates how vital good housing is for Health, Education, and Crime Prevention.