Voting is under way in both Glasgow, with 88,000 homes, and Birmingham, with 80,000. Next month鈥檚 ballot results for the two biggest transfers in the country are being eagerly awaited, as a 鈥榶es鈥� result in both would be a huge nail in the coffin of council housing.
The decision on whether or not to transfer should, in theory, be relatively painless. Both sides make their case and present their arguments, then tenants cast their votes.
But what is unfolding in these campaigns is a worrying display of mudslinging and insult throwing from both sides of the fence, which is making a mockery of the government鈥檚 line that all tenants should be given clear and unambiguous information on the basis of which they can make an informed choice.
鈥淪o what?鈥� I hear you cry. 鈥淧oliticians do it all the time and we still vote.鈥�
That is a fair point, but the decision on who owns their homes will have a more immediate effect on these council tenants than will voting for a political party and its long-term policies.
Having spent a day with both the pro and anti-transfer groups in Birmingham, I was thankful that I did not have to vote, because I do not know which way I would have turned amid the confusion.
Starting off with Unison, I took a jaunt round the city centre on its 鈥榁ote No to Stock Transfer鈥� campaign bus. Complete with loudspeakers, balloons and posters against the sell-off, the bus represented a well-oiled campaign machine, and showed how organised Defend Council Housing and Unison have become.
Unison activists are furious at what they see as unfair tactics from the council during the lead up to the vote, which they say are designed to get a 鈥榶es鈥� result. The union has written to DTLR secretary Stephen Byers to demand an investigation.
Their 23-page letter lists their grievances and accuses the council of contravening several of the DTLR鈥檚 guidelines on tenants鈥� consultation.
It claims that the original offer document highlights all the positives of a transfer and none of the negatives, and as such pushes for a 鈥榶es鈥� vote by 鈥渟ending out aggressive messages鈥�.
The union has also objected to the infamous promotional video for the stock transfer, which featured former Aston Villa manager Ron Atkinson and showed housing cabinet member Dennis Minnis standing outside a council house 鈥� which turned out to have been sold under right to buy 15 years ago.
And as far as DCH and Unison are concerned, the case for a 鈥榶es鈥� vote has been blown out of the water by Byers himself.
They point to his reply to a parliamentary select committee in January, when he was asked if the government could still meet its target to bring all homes up to the decency standard by 2010, even if tenants voted not to transfer. Byers said: 鈥淚t is a commitment that will be met, irrespective of any decisions which are taken by tenants.鈥�
Summing up his feelings, one housing officer who had taken the day off to campaign on board the bus said: 鈥淚鈥檓 sick of the corruption and the bullying, they are not telling the truth on higher rents or tenancies, they are making false promises.鈥�
Another tenant I met said she voted 鈥榶es鈥�, but only because she felt that there was no alternative. Her neighbour had voted 鈥榥o鈥�.
So what do the pro-transfer people say to all this?
On walking into the room to meet them, I was immediately greeted by two supporters who proceeded (presumably for my benefit) to chat to each other about how noisy Unison鈥檚 campaign bus was and how it had 鈥渦pset a number of tenants鈥�.
They then accused Unison of scaremongering and telling half-truths to the tenants 鈥� the same charge Unison has laid at the council鈥檚 doorstep.
But Roy Hunter, himself a council house tenant and chairman of East Birmingham Community Housing Partnership, firmly believes that transfer is the only solution for the city.
Pointing out that there are many high-rise buildings in a bad state of repair, he said that the Shard End area of the city houses most of Birmingham鈥檚 elderly tenants in properties dating back to the first world war.
For him, stock transfer means having the money to regenerate areas like that, to provide a greater level of infrastructure and to get better care for the community.
Hunter, along with Ian Jenkins, vice chair of the Greater Yardley RSL, and James Ross, a board member of transfer umbrella group Birmingham Alliance, does not believe that any government statement on decency would result in houses being renovated to the same standard as they would under transfer 鈥� they would simply get the bare minimum, they fear.
They also counter Unison and DCH鈥檚 argument that 25,000 homes will be demolished with no fixed plans to rebuild them.
Jenkins said: 鈥淭he housing stock doesn鈥檛 represent exactly what we need. There are people in flats for whom a house is more appropriate and vice versa, so looking at the number of houses being demolished doesn鈥檛 necessarily reflect the need.鈥�
In Birmingham both sides have been continuing the accusations and counter accusations on radio shows, and at one point Unison objected to tenants handing in their ballot papers two days before the official start of the voting. This resulted in one tenant getting upset because she thought her vote would be counted as invalid, and intensified the arguing between both sides.
The bickering and sniping that is marring this key decision has been repeated north of the border.
In recent weeks Glasgow politicians have been trading insults, as tempers began to fray over which way people will vote.
In an extraordinary outburst, Liberal Democrat MSP Robert Brown singled out Scottish Socialist Party MSP Tommy Sheridan and Labour MSP John McAllion for fierce criticism, along with tenant activist Sean Clerkson.
Labelling them 鈥淛eremiahs and doom merchants鈥� and akin to 鈥減olitical dinosaurs鈥�, Brown said that the transfer would be good news for tenants and it represented a solution to the years of neglect and under-investment in the city.
Sheridan retorted: 鈥淭he Glasgow stock transfer campaign is a classic case of blackmail by politicians to privatise Scotland鈥檚 assets. They are attempting to bribe tenants by writing off 拢1bn of council debt as long as they agree to transfer to Glasgow Housing Association.鈥�
McAllion said: 鈥淭he government is disempowering tenants and taking choice away from them.鈥�
The conduct of the debates in Birmingham and Glasgow makes it difficult for tenants to make an informed choice.
One might as well put a representative from each side into a boxing ring, get them to fight it out and declare that the decision on whether to transfer or not will be determined by the victor.
And certainly in Birmingham, both sides agree that the negative comments have overshadowed the issue of giving tenants all the information they need to make a sound decision.
What is clear is that both Glasgow and Birmingham鈥檚 belligerent campaigns have not made the decision any easier for tenants, and, whatever the outcome, may well leave a sour taste in the mouth of the loser.
Source
Housing Today
No comments yet