CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Risk and responsibility

(47 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. Instography
    Member

    It's not that I want to let RTB off the hook but neither do I want to let (largely Labour) councils off their hook for a much longer standing neglect of their housing stock. Estates like Castlemilk or Craigmillar, where the bulk of social housing was to be found, were largely neglected from the moment the building work stopped in the late 1950s. It's just not true to locate the problems with the RTB. By the time I left Castlemilk in 1980, the Thatcher was barely in power and it was already in an advance state of decay. The right to buy hadn't touched it and would barely touch it. It would be (Tory) urban regeneration - New Life for Urban Scotland - that would see Castlemilk (and Wester Hailes, Ferguslie Park and Whitfield) get its first large programme of housing refurbishment in 30 years.

    That systematic neglect - largely to keep rents down and effectively buy votes - also affected the better off areas and part of the appeal of the right to buy was that it allowed people to be independent of the council. Sure, it was a bargain (although not so much of a bargain when you consider what the tenants had been paying in and getting back over the years) but it was also the mechanism by which those people could get new kitchens, windows and doors, which most of those houses also hadn't seen since they were built.

    So, the aim of the right to buy might have been to undermine collective provision and encourage individualism but it had a ready audience. Collective provision hadn't been all that good. Councils had done a pretty poor job of being developers and landlords - building crap houses and then systematically mismanaging them. RTB was an individual solution to collectivisms problems.

    The social processes - the changing populations had also been going on for years. The trouble with most council estates was always that they were nowhere near jobs and they had poor transport links so skilled workers, the better paid, the ones who would maintain gardens, improve also had middle class aspirations. You would see their living standards improve. They would get a phone installed, a colour TV and a car and then they would move to East Kilbride or Cambuslang where the Scottish Special Housing Association was a better landlord or where there were nice new houses to buy near work and shops. Again, those processes (and that process of setting up housing associations to stop councils running the housing stock in the new towns) predate the right to buy.

    For the left, Thatcherism has been a convenient historical marker used to signify some huge break with the past. To locate all of our social problems with the arrival of Thatcher is convenient because it means we don't need to look at what that past really was and where the problems really started.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  2. calmac
    Member

    Morningsider, are you me? Because your post yesterday is exactly my interpretation of the last 35 years in Scotland.

    The end of your point 4 is of massive significance and is very little recognised. Most people believe that the industrial age was coming to an end in Western Europe by the 1970s, but what people in Britain do not realise is that it wasn't like this in other countries.

    In northern France, western Germany, Belgium and the industrial parts of the Netherlands, they faced the same harsh economic realities as we did, in particular with competition from the far east. What happened here was Thatcher told the aspiring working class, "I'll make you middle class, so long as you forget about those you leave behind". She was true to her word. So we shifted to a service economy, sold off the nationalised industries, benefited from very high oil prices, cut taxes and created a new middle class.

    Meanwhile in Europe they invested massively in new technology, training, vocational education and infrastructure. Instead of metal-bashing and coal mining they moved to chemicals, plastics, high-tech engineering. My Bosch dishwasher is awesome.

    Thatcherism was absolutely all about ending any genuine sense of solidarity with each other. Loyalty was expected to institutions - the monarchy, the armed forces, the flag - but we were told that we were all in competition with each other and if anyone was struggling, that was their own fault.

    What does this have to do with letting kids out to play? We don't trust each other so much any more. We don't accept any responsibility for anyone else's kids, so we don't expect anyone to look out for ours. We're just more fearful.

    So we drive our kids to playdates with friends we have picked for them, because that's what respectable people do.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  3. Morningsider
    Member

    Insto - A very good analysis. As someone who spent their early years living on the 13th floor of a council tower block, I can only agree about the poor quality and mis-management of council housing in the 1970's and 1980's.

    I still think the Right to Buy played a role in the rise of individualism, principally through speeding the decline of collective housing provision. I understand why individuals bought their houses - my parents held out from buying until it became more expensive to rent our flat than buy it.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  4. calmac
    Member

    Instography, I was born in Castlemilk too, and we also left in 1980. It was a sh*t-hole.

    Have you read Blossom by Lesley Riddoch? She points out the public rented accomodation in Scotland was provided by distant, monolithic councils who were unaccountable and totally out of touch. But in Europe it was, and still is, provided by community-based landlords. Tenants have much more power over what happens and they are the bosses.

    The European social democratic model differs principally from the Scottish model because there it is something they do, and here it is done to us. It's the sense of ownership and empowerment that we're really missing, and neither side, left or right, has understood that. The right tries to fix it through individual power, which is mythical and leaves the less able behind; the left tries to fix it through paternalistic State provision.

    As for baby monitors... I think that would be more correlative than causative, personally.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  5. calmac
    Member

    And on RTB - I think it speaks volumes for Scots, and for the diofference between us and most of the UK, that though we may have taken advantage of it individually, we always knew it was collectively wrong and didn't want the policy. Labour put a moratorium on it, and the SNP ended it.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  6. Morningsider
    Member

    Insto, Calmac - we only need one more for a full Four Yorkshiremen!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  7. calmac
    Member

    Aye. We wuz poor, but we wuz 'appy!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  8. Instography
    Member

    "What happened here was Thatcher told the aspiring working class, "I'll make you middle class, so long as you forget about those you leave behind". She was true to her word."

    The key to this, however, is that the aspiring working classes existed long before Thatcher and they have always existed. Thatcher, I think, hitched a ride on a train that was already rolling. What she did was give these people a large measure of what they wanted - to be cut loose from the Council and allowed to decide for themselves what colour their front door and windows would be. Thatcher didn't create it, she recognised it as an aspect of her own experience and as something she felt should be allowed to happen so she facilitated it. And people voted for it, whether the Thatcher or Blair version, for nearly twenty years. They're still voting for it. RTB might have speeded something up but it was happening anyway.

    By the same token, let's not characterise tenants as unwilling victims put upon by an over-bearing council. Most were perfectly happy to benefit financially from the mismanagement of their own houses. People voted for the low rents and certainly wouldn't have voted for any plan to increase them.

    I haven't got the data to hand but I think you'll find that the Scots, in general, supported the policy of selling council houses to sitting tenants. Half a million took it up. Attitudes, both political and general public, only changed once the sales had slowed to a trickle anyway. In its 2007 manifesto, the SNP planned to continue the right to buy. In 2011, their manifesto made no mention of it. Labour also planned to continue RTB in 2007 (albeit with some exceptions in pressured areas). They too were silent on it in 2011. So possibly not seen as a vote winner by either party.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  9. crowriver
    Member

    The fourth Yorkshireman of the Apocalype hath arrived. Well, technically half Lancastrian, but anyway...

    As a young kid I lived in Wester Hailes, when it was still new. There were problems even then, I recall gang fights, petty thieving, and transient criminal elements around the place. But there was still a strong sense of community, lots of families living there, a strong Tenants' Association, and certain expectations of behaviour and doing your bit (woe betide you if you did not take you turn to scour out the rubbish chute with boiling water).

    Living in a council house or flat in the early 1970s did not have the same social stigma attached to it as it did just ten years later. It was normal. After a certain age (around 5 or 6 in my case) we kids were allowed to play relatively unsupervised. Yes, we got into the odd scrape (cf. the gang fights alluded to above) but there was also a joy in the freedom of being given some responsibility for your own affairs.

    Of course they were different times. Many (though not all) mothers were at home for much of the day, or there were extended family nearby to keep an eye on children. Traffic in council estates was very light, so incautious crossing of roads was not the death sentence it might be today. It was socially acceptable for kids to be running around in groups together, doing what kids do.

    I'm trying to pinpoint when that might have changed, certainly not in the early 1980s, at least not north of Watford. Probably the change was later, in the late 1980s or 1990s: The rise of car culture during that period is certainly a factor, but not the only one. I can't say with certainty because by then the only school age kids I knew were living in Orkney: island life is/was so radically different from urban living that it's impossible to make meaningful comparisons regarding the freedom of children to roam. Oh and folk really did leave their doors open on the smaller isles at least. Maybe not now, but 30 years ago for sure.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  10. calmac
    Member

    Instography, I think it's mistaken to equate the number who bought their council house with support for the policy. Lots of the people who took advantage did so because they knew it was best for them, but they also knew that the policy was wrong overall and would have voted against it, had they been given the chance. I know many families in that boat.

    It's self-defeating not to take advantage of something like that while others are doing it, but that's not inconsistent with thinking nobody should have that choice.

    One of Thatcher's motives for RTB was that she thought she would make Conservative voters out of the people who bought. This broadly worked in England, and broadly failed in Scotland. For the reasons behind that you have to look at the cultural differences.

    As for creating a new middle class, I don't think RTB had much to do with that. Maybe later, for those who ended up with a nice profit that they could shift into a house in that street in spam valley they'd always fancied. It was more to do with changes in the economy overall - taxes, growing the service sector, new housebuilding, building roads and making car ownership cheap, expanding universities and the cultural leadership of encouraging people to make more money and spend it on themselves.

    RTB also didn't benefit those in the sprawling estates - Castlemilk, Drumchapel, Easterhouse, Pollok. It was in the nice wee estates like Merrylea where people did very nicely - and moreso beyond cities like Glasgow altogether. I'm living in an ex-council flat now which cost us £115,000 - cheap for the town, but beyond the reach of lower-income locals. Someone made a killing on that at some point.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  11. Baldcyclist
    Member

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/10/scotland-dirty-secret-thatcherites-referendum

    "
    At the 1979 election, the Conservatives won over 31% of the Scottish vote,
    "

    Not all Scots 'hated' Thatcher, and what she stood for at the time. Many parties today would give their right arm for 31% of the vote

    Posted 11 years ago #
  12. Morningsider
    Member

    Insto - again, I agree with what you say. The RTB was a vote winner and politicians have only recently changed their mind on this, effectively when all the decent housing stock has been sold off and sales have declined to a trickle.

    Personally, I don't think the RTB was the only solution to aspirations for better public housing (not saying you do either). Council control of public housing could have been broken up and passed to housing co-ops, tenant management groups, local housing associations and the like - which are common in some European countries, as Calmac mentioned.

    You could probably even have introduced the RTB as well, without the discounts (max 70% for a flat and 60% for a house). If people had to pay market value it would have been far less attractive.

    If councils could have invested the receipts of RTB sales in new housing it would also have helped sustain social housing construction in the 80's/90's, easing today's huge demand for social housing and taking the heat out of the housing market.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  13. chdot
    Admin

    Another great CCE drift thread.

    "You could probably even have introduced the RTB as well, without the discounts (max 70% for a flat and 60% for a house). If people had to pay market value it would have been far less attractive."

    I seem to recall that the idea for selling council houses was (partly) to create a "property owning democracy". Though the idea is pre-Thatcher -

    "

    The phrase ‘property owning democracy’, on which the popular conservatism of the 20th century rested, and with it a vision of the good society, was coined by the Scottish Unionist Noel Skelton in a quartet of articles for the Spectator entitled ‘Constructive Conservatism’, written in the spring of 1923.

    "

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2014/04/04/aaron-bastani/property-owning-democracy

    HOWEVER ('her first speech as party leader') -

    "

    I know you will understand the humility I feel at following in the footsteps of great men like our Leader in that year, Winston Churchill, a man called by destiny to raise the name of Britain to supreme heights in the history of the free world; in the footsteps of Anthony Eden, who set us the goal of a property-owning democracy - a goal we still pursue today; of Harold Macmillan whose leadership brought so many ambitions within the grasp of every citizen; of Alec Douglas-Home whose career of selfless public service earned the affection and admiration of us all; and of Edward Heath, who successfully led the Party to victory in 1970 and brilliantly led the nation into Europe in 1973.

    "

    http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=121

    When RTB was introduced Labour was ideologically against it, so weren't interested in considering amendments such as reducing the discount or limiting the type of housing or restricting the number sold in any particular area (for instance).

    The Tories weren't 'true to their beliefs' otherwise they would have offered discounts to private tenants...

    So however much they believed 'society is better if people own there own homes', this was clearly an attack on "municipalisation' - ie (mostly) Labour councils. As has been suggested upthread, councils weren't always the best landlords, but RTB didn't address this (or even try to).

    "If councils could have invested the receipts of RTB sales in new housing it would also have helped sustain social housing construction in the 80's/90's, easing today's huge demand for social housing and taking the heat out of the housing market."

    Indeed. I have never been clear where the "discount" came from. I presume the answer is that it was entirely notional. Selling something that you weren't planning to sell results in 'unexpected income'. Except that councils no longer had the rental income and were still paying the 'mortgage' on some of the newer houses!

    Being unable to use the "capital receipt" to build any replacements was just further putting the boot in. Even Tory run councils weren't happy.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  14. calmac
    Member

    "Council control of public housing could have been broken up and passed to housing co-ops, tenant management groups, local housing associations and the like"

    "If councils could have invested the receipts of RTB sales in new housing it would also have helped sustain social housing construction in the 80's/90's, easing today's huge demand for social housing and taking the heat out of the housing market."

    Seriously dude, are you me? I've been ranting about this for years to anyone who would listen (and to many who would not).

    The state and prominence of housing policy in the UK is a joke, and an aberration in European terms. On social housing we've had two extremes with no willingness to compromise, while on private housing we've had a complete withdrawl by government to leave everything in the hands of market forces. Folk look at you as if you've got two heads when you suggest the government should interfere in the housing market to make it fairer for actual people.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  15. chdot
    Admin

    "Folk look at you as if you've got two heads when you suggest the government should interfere in the housing market to make it fairer for actual people."

    Well they do interfere - interest rates, mortgage subsidies/incentives, 'relaxing planning controls' etc.

    Oh -

    You're talking about fairness...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  16. SRD
    Moderator

    Slightly different angle but follows on from various discussions about parents and risk:

    http://www.thelocal.se/20140808/swedish-dad-takes-kids-to-war-zone

    Posted 10 years ago #
  17. crowriver
    Member

    @SRD, interesting link. The discussion in the comments below with the father pitching in rather good too.

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin