No Housing Stock Transfer in Inverclyde !

Help the campaign for a NO VOTE We need YOUR help to get our case to as many people as possible. We will be distributing info through people’s letter boxes *this week. If you would like to volunteer *this week* doon the water Phone 07976 718 111 as soon as you can.Hope you can join the campaign. Pass this message on to a friend today!
*THE SCOTTISH TENANTS ORGANISATION*
Call 07976 718 111,(01698) 281 488,
or 0131 476 2359.PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND
Housing Stock Transfers …. the Truth!
They are unfair, unwanted and unnecessary.

Housing stock transfers were introduced by the Thatcher government as a means of getting rid of public sector housing. Up until this time governments in Britain since the nineteen twenties, had assumed a responsibility for public housing and had provided investment to councils to back that responsibility. After 1979 it was all change as far as the Tories were concerned and successive governments have tried to reduce their responsibilities for the provision of public housing. Councils have been deliberately denied access to cash to invest in their housing in an attempt to force them into the private sector. New Labour continues to implement the same privatisation policies.

This tenure change agenda is being pursued despite the governments promise of universal choice and despite the fact that investing in housing and a change of landlord are two quite separate issues.

Tenants are being told that if they wish their homes repaired and upgraded then they must choose a new landlord. However the new landlord is one of the governments choosing and must be a private landlord ie: a Registered Social Landlord.

The Chancellor has said that the Treasury will take on the outstanding housing debt of Councils which transfer their stock ( Debt Write Off ), but refuses to do likewise for Councils which retain theirs.

This is deeply unfair and undemocratic!

The Scottish Tenants Organisation believes that the way to change these unfair policies is to vote against transfer!

Drop The Debt!

The historic housing debt is a burden on all tenants, not just those who transfer out of the public sector. If the Chancellor can find the means to let the Treasury take on the debt of some councils, then why can`t it be done for the rest? Removing the historic debt from Councils would solve most of the housing investment problems in one go and would not cost the country one penny more than at present. It could also happen tomorrow if the Chancellor would act fairly in tenants interests. So do not believe anyone who tells you that there is no alternative.

The Tide is Turning

Change of policy now a possibility

The Labour Party Conference in 2005 overwhelmingly voted to end stock transfers. However, the government chose to ignore the democratic decision of the Conference and continued to promote privatisation. This caused huge unrest within the Party and pressure has been put on the Office of the Deputy prime Minister (ODPM), whose Department has responsibility for housing in England. Opposition from tenants organisations, Trade Unions, campaign groups, MPs as well as many tenants voting NO has caused a rethink at Westminster. The ODPM has set up a working party to examine ways of allowing councils to access the housing investment they need. Campaigners believe that a change of policy is now within reach.

Here in Scotland things are also moving. Tenants in Edinburgh, fed up being treated unfairly, sent shock waves through the government by voting No to the privatisation of their homes. With the help of other tenants facing transfer, we can win! Don’t be fooled by the spin.

Recently our own Finance Minister reminded us that the Treasury has £1.5 Billion of Scotland’s money in reserve, of which he was minded to release £800 Million for various purposes next year. Government has also over the years spent £62 Million promoting stock transfers. Meanwhile public housing is allowed to deteriorate and the lie is perpetuated that there is insufficient funds to repair and maintain our homes.

Stock transfers are the governments agenda, not tenants. Nowhere in Scotland are tenants clamouring for a new landlord. Yet the idea is still being foisted on us against our will. Tenants are being used as pawns in the Scottish Executives social engineering exercise and being handed responsibility without any real power.

DON’T BELIEVE THE HYPE

Housing Associations are being created specifically to fulfil the Executives aim of privatisation. The Boards of these purpose built creations are self appointees carrying out the Scottish Executives bidding and do not work in tenants interests.

Slick glossy advertising masquerades as information. But this so called information is a one sided peddling of Executive propaganda designed to brainwash tenants. Do not be fooled by any of it.

The Scottish Tenants Organisation is asking tenants to take a firm stand against the injustice of these privatisation policies by rejecting the lack of real choice, rejecting a move out of the public sector and rejecting the Chancellors strictures on housing debt. When the time comes – Vote No!

STOCK TRANSFERS ARE A LAND GRAB – STOP THEM IN THEIR TRACKS
Housing Stock Transfers …. the Truth!

They are unfair, unwanted and unnecessary.



STOCK TRANSFERS ARE A LAND GRAB – STOP THEM IN THEIR in THEIR TRACK


Tenants 'blackmailed' into housing transfers

Matt Weaver
Friday October 29, 2004

The Guardian

Claims that ministers are trying to blackmail tenants into accepting new
management of council housing are justified, according to a government researcher.

Academic Hal Pawson, who has carried out a series of official studies for the
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, has delivered a scathing attack on the
government's troubled housing policy.

Writing in this year's UK Housing Review he claimed that that it was misleading
of ministers to claim that their policy of switching homes to new landlords
promoted choice in public services.

Mr Pawson, senior research fellow at Edinburgh's Heriot-Watt university, said it
was "hard to contest" campaigners' claims that tenants were being blackmailed
into voting for new management of their homes.

He said: "Ultimately, the 'choice' offered to the vast majority of tenants
consists of no more that an opportunity to endorse or reject a single option,
with rejection potentially incurring a heavy penalty in the form of debarred
access to capital investment. This is, arguably, hardly a choice at all."

The government has a target of ensuring that all council homes are bought up to
a decent standard by 2010. But it insists that the extra resources to achieve
this will only be available to councils that switch their homes to housing
associations, private finance consortia or arm's length management organisations.

Mr Pawson's comments are the latest blow to this policy. In September the Labour
party rejected the policy by backing a resolution calling for direct housing
investment in areas where tenants have voted to retain the council as their
landlord.

Mr Pawson pointed out that the decent homes standard was itself an "unambitious
yardstick", and even if it was achieved it would not represent a
"transformation" of council housing.

He also noted that nearly a fifth of transfer housing associations run into
trouble with the regulator after being set up.

Mr Pawson said that tenants were rarely consulted about council's decisions to
go for housing transfers, and even when they were the tenants involved were not
representative of general tenant opinion.

He wrote: "It is hard to present transfer as genuinely part of the 'customer
choice' agenda. Proposals are hardly ever bottom-up in the sense of being
motivated by tenant preferences."

He accepted that describing housing transfer as 'privatisation' was tenuous. But
he added: "The 'fat cat' image of housing association chief executives and the
perception of bigger pay differentials than are the norm in local authorities
are presented as lending some credence to the 'privatisation' argument.

"Housing association board member payments, as now introduced in England, may
well provide further ammunition for this line of attack."

The review is published jointly by the Chartered Institute of Housing and the
Council for Mortgage Lenders. They pointed out that Mr Pawson was writing in a
personal capacity.

SocietyGuardian.co.uk © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004