At its AGM recently the Labour Housing Group voted to oppose campaigning to commit Labour to end Right to Buy when in government. Myself and Ben Clay moved a motion which would have committed the LHG to sign our statement calling on Labour to commit to ending it and to encourage LHG members to support it. Unfortunately, the LHG executive moved an ‘amendment’ (see below) which effectively negated the resolution and abandoned their own policy of ending RTB, a policy which their own delegate voted for at the 2019 and 2021 conferences1. So instead of seeking to influence Labour’s governmental housing policy they decided to support the Labour leadership’s policies (insofar as they know what they are).
“Devolution in decision making”
Their amendment, which was full of contradictions, struggled to justify abandoning their own policy, one which the Labour membership has overwhelmingly supported. One argument was based on “devolution in decision making”.
“Local and democratically elected decision-makers understand how best to respond to the housing crisis in their area.”
Tory councils included? Local discretion would give Tory councils the freedom to carry on selling council homes. We can see what a problem this would be because of the 166 councils that still have council housing, in England, Labour currently only has majority control of 55 of them.2
On the one hand the amendment recognised that “RTB represents the greatest give away of public sector assets at discounted rates, with a price being paid by remaining council tenants in the form of underfunded management and maintenance services.” Yet it then repeats what has been essentially a Tory argument when it says
“However, it should be recognised that on an individual basis RTB enabled a significant number of working class families to benefit from a significant capital asset and gain financial security for the first time and for those wishing to stay in their homes buying it gave them a deep stake in their community.”
Or as Tory Minister Michael Heseltine put it, RTB gave the new home owners “a personal stake in society”. This is an utterly reactionary argument, implying that you have to own an asset to have a “stake” in your community. So council tenants don’t?
The amendment said that Labour needs to act to stop RTB being a mechanism for transferring properties from the public to the private rented sector, “this was never the intention”. This is an echo of what Lisa Nandy said when she announced that Labour supports the “principle” of RTB (a view for which she has no democratic mandate). There was no “principle”. The intention of the Thatcher government was to undermine the electoral base of Labour on council estates. It was a means of the Tories mobilising self-interest to win votes from council tenants. “Aspiration” was nothing less than self-interest, in disregard of the social consequences. It was the opposite of the aspiration that was at the root of the trade union and labour movement; collective aspiration – struggling for the collective interests of the working class.
Ending RTB “may be the right solution in areas of acute housing stress” but there should be other options available, we are told. Reducing the discount is one and not allowing RTB for new homes. This is a means apparently of “emasculating” RTB. The rationale for this is that reducing the discount will ‘kill off RTB’ without getting into an argument with the Tories, and won’t be a ‘gift’ to the Daily Mail.
This makes no sense. The Labour leadership appears frightened of the prospect of the Tories accusing them of “opposing aspiration” by ending RTB. But surely if you lower the discount to cut the number of sales and disallow it for new homes the Tories are going to say the same thing, since Labour would be stopping some people enjoying their ‘right’ to buy.
The problem with the Labour leadership’s position is that they accept that “aspiration” to own a home via RTB is a good thing, regardless of the social consequences. The corollary of that – this has always been the implication and sometimes said openly – is that if you don’t want to own one you lack “aspiration”. Everybody has aspirations but as we saw during the pandemic they are not necessarily pecuniary, or self-interested.
Of course, cutting the discount would reduce the numbers sold but we have no idea as yet to what degree they are proposing to cut it by. Even when John Prescott cut the discount there were still more than 2,000 homes sold each year.
It is not difficult to counter the argument about “aspiration”. This “greatest give-away of public assets” not only impacted on councils but on the people on the waiting list, since there are very few homes available. In 1920/21 there were only 47,000 lets to new tenants. The waiting lists are around 1.2 million (and they have been manipulated to minimise them).
Why did the executive of the LHG decide to oppose a campaign for ending RTB? Essentially they do not want to be seen to be disagreeing with the Labour leadership. One of the officers said “we don’t want a row in the run-up to the election”. In effect they have given up their right to disagree with the leadership and to seek to influence Labour’s next Manifesto and its governmental programme.
Foot-soldiers?
If members cannot tell the leadership that they are wrong and suggest an alternative then they are reduced to foot-soldiers being handed down their instructions from on high. Essentially the LHG decision gives carte blanche to the leadership to decide on policy at the top.
Yet currently we do not know
- How much funding will be available for new council house building.
- What will be the balance on funding for councils or housing associations.
- How much will be devoted to home ownership.
It is no great secret that as Chancellor, Rachel Reeves will not be throwing money around like confetti. There will undoubtedly be a debate about what the government’s priorities are. We will have to fight for for sufficient funding for existing council homes and for new council house building. Ending RTB, therefore, is critical, because it would stop the loss of stock, ensure that whatever funding we do get will increase the available homes and open the possibility of beginning to cut the waiting lists. That’s why the campaign to end RTB needs to be continued because it is one of the essential planks of a policy to begin to resolve the housing crisis. RTB was always wrong. It has been one of the major causes for the acute housing crisis. Ending it is one of the necessary steps to resolve it.
Martin Wicks
1The LHG is an affiliated society of the Labour Party and sends a delegate to the conference.
2Labour is involved in 8 coalitions, has five minority administrations. It has two elected Mayor, though in both of the areas Labour doesn’t have a majority of councillors. Bristol electors voted to end the Mayoralty. Labour and the Greens currently have 25 councillors each.
Addendum
LHG Executive amendment to Labour Campaign for Council Housing Resolution
LHG notes the LCCH Right to Buy (RTB) motion. LHG recognises that one of the causes of the housing crisis has been the loss of council homes as a result of RTB introduced by Margaret Thatcher in her 1980 Housing Act.
This is why in England there are less than 1.6 million council homes left and that RTB represents the UK’s greatest give-away of public assets at discounted rates; with a price being paid by remaining council tenants in the form of underfunded management and maintenance services.
However, it should be recognised that on an individual basis RTB allowed a significant number working-class families to benefit from a significant capital asset and gain financial security for the first time and for those wishing to stay in their home buying it gave them a deep stake in their community.
The Labour Party wants more private rented sector tenants to be able to enjoy the benefits of the security, affordability and democratic control offered by council housing.
RTB is now substantially a mechanism for transferring homes out of council ownership and into the private rented sector, with at least 40% of ex-council properties now in the Private Rented Sector. Labour needs to act to stop RTB being a mechanism for transferring properties from the public to the PRS – this was never the intention.
The Labour Party believes in the devolution of decision-making. Local and democratically elected decision-makers understand how best to respond to the housing crisis in their area. Ending RTB may be the right solution in areas of acute housing stress, but there should be other options available such as:
• Reducing the discount
• Strict controls on unscrupulous companies gaming the system by buying homes on the tenant’s behalf with a view to making a profit by re-selling or renting out the property.
• For new sales there should be the right for the council to buy back the property if the family who exercised the RTB want to move on
• Not offering RTB on new builds
• Providing the funding and requiring like-for-like replacements
• Funding councils to buy-back ex council leasehold properties.
Labour Campaign for Council Housing 