4607BR Urban Studies article.pdf

Abstract

To what extent does the Freirean concept of submerged consciousness contribute towards understanding of tenant participation in housing stock transfers? This paper describes the policy and process of housing stock transfer, noting both its contested nature and the role of tenants in the process. It explores Freire’s concept of submerged consciousness, relating it to a cliché common amongst tenants experiencing stock transfer—‘better the devil you know’—before applying a Freirean analytical framework to an ethnographic study of a housing stock transfer. The paper concludes that Freire does offer a valuable analytical framework in respect of tenant participation in housing stock transfers, before offering some suggestions for further, related research.

‘Revolutionary’ discipline depends on political literature on the subject has to a large extent consciousness—on an understanding of why located it within the wider contexts of housing orders must be obeyed; it takes time to diffuse

policy development, public service reform this, but it also takes time to drill a man into and reform of the welfare state (for example,

an automaton on the barrack-square. (George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia, 1938) Ginsburg, 2005; Clapham, 2006; Pawson, 2006; Card and Mudd, 2006; Sprigings,

2002; Walker, 2001; Mullins and Murie, 2006;

Introduction

Murie and Nevin, 2001). As a consequence, the starting-point for much of this literature is

The transfer of low-cost, publicly owned to be found within the perceived political and housing stock in the UK to not-for-profi t re- economic imperatives underpinning public gistered social landlords is a subject that has policy development in this area, as well as the commanded somewhat limited attention in effi cacy of these policies. With a few possible academic circles (Malpass, 2001). Scholarly exceptions, such as Taylor (1999), Mooney

John McCormack is in the Department of Arts and Humanities, Institute of Education, University of London, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AL, UK. E-mail: john.mccormack697@ntlworld.com.

0042-0980 Print/1360-063X Online © 2009 Urban Studies Journal Limited DOI: 10.1177/0042098008099360

392 JOHN MCCORMACK

and Poole (2005) and Robbins (2002), little strongly from a previous research exercise of the literature on stock transfer approaches involving tenants affected by stock transfer the subject from a tenant perspective (al- proposals (McCormack, 2008)—‘Better the though, as Cole and Furbey, 1994, have pointed devil you know’—and suggest a prima facie out, this is true of the scholarly literature case for adopting a Freirean approach to on housing policy generally). This, I believe, the issue of tenant consciousness and hous- constitutes a signifi cant oversight. As a con- ing stock transfers. The paper will then apply sequence, this paper seeks to contribute to this approach to an ethnographic study and the corpus of literature on stock transfer by will conclude by suggesting that Freire’s exploring the subject of tenant consciousness concept of submerged consciousness (and in relation to it and how this impacts upon the related concepts of naïve transitive con- tenant perspectives on—and participation sciousness and critical consciousness) contrib- in—such transfers.

utes signifi cantly to our understanding of Using a Freirean theoretical framework and the dynamics of landlord–tenant relations drawing upon the fi ndings of an ethnographic and its impact upon tenant consciousness, and study, the paper addresses the question: to participation, in relation to housing stock what extent does the Freirean concept of sub- transfers. Furthermore, such a conclusion merged consciousness contribute towards has signifi cant implications for the research an understanding of tenant participation in agenda relating to stock transfer and tenant housing stock transfers? In doing so, clearly, participation; and the paper fi nishes off with the paper is of interest to all those with a some recommendations in this respect. scholarly or practitioner interest in hous-

ing policy in the UK. However, insofar as it Housing Stock Transfer

explores the issue of user involvement in the planning and delivery of a key welfare service,

A key feature of current public policy towards

I believe it will be of interest to all those with affordable social housing in the UK is the an interest in policy reform, development and transfer of tenanted and leasehold stock delivery across the public and welfare sectors. owned by local authorities to not-for-profi t Furthermore, in view of the fact that stock registered social landlords, commonly refer- transfer involves the democratic participation red to as housing associations or—in some of what are more often than not deprived, low- cases—local housing companies (and in income communities (Pawson, 2006) (with Scotland, housing co-operatives also). Lat- little experience of decision-making in re- terly, some practitioners and policy-makers spect of public policy issues), I believe that all have been celebrating the landmark of those interested in developing civic engage-

1 million council homes being transferred to ment amongst poor communities will have an the registered social landlord sector (Inside interest in the issues explored in this paper.

Housing, 2006).

The paper will proceed by outlining in more There are several reasons why housing detail the policy and process of stock transfer, stock transfer is seen as desirable by the cur- including the supposed benefi ts and alleged rent UK government. These include: the cap- disadvantages. It will focus in particular on the acity of stock transfer landlords to raise private contested nature of stock transfer, the role of fi nance to invest in housing stock (an option tenants in the process and the infl uences that not currently open to local authority land- are brought to bear on tenant consciousness. lords, as this would, within UK public-sector It will then look closely at the meaning and accounting conventions, mean an increase in signifi cance of a particular theme that emerged public-sector net borrowing); the creation of

HOUSING STOCK TRANSFERS 393

a wider range of tenant-infl uenced housing organisations to provide better and more responsive housing services to tenants; and, an opportunity for councils to focus on their strategic role of facilitating housing provision to meet needs, rather than directly providing housing as landlords (DETR and DSS, 2000). In fact, since 2003, the offi cial policy of stock transfer has been very closely linked in with

a strategy for capital investment to attain a national standard for housing (the ‘Decent Homes Standard’) and many councils— unable to demonstrate their own capacity to meet this standard—have embarked upon formal stock transfer exercises in order to address the issue of long-term sustainability of decent, affordable housing stock.

Stock transfers have to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State responsible for hous- ing policy in order to go ahead. Amongst other things, this involves the local authority, as the disposing landlord, demonstrating to the Secretary of State that a majority of the tenants affected by the proposal do not object to the transfer taking place. Although not a formal legal requirement, this has widely been interpreted as meaning that tenants have been balloted on the transfer proposal and a simple majority have voted in favour of the transfer (ODPM, 2004). Conversely, if a simple ma- jority of tenants vote against the proposal, consent to transfer is in practice not sought, let alone given. Housing stock transfers are, therefore, characterised by referenda and thus are a site of active citizenship, with tenants in effect determining the future provision of a key welfare service in their area. In addition to the ballot process, active citizenship in the stock transfer process is evidenced by the formation and function of a tenant panel to participate in the development of the pro- posals that are subsequently voted on in a ballot—investment programme, rent levels, tenancy conditions, service provision, etc. It is also standard practice for one-third of the places on the governing body of a stock

transfer landlord to be reserved for tenant rep- resentatives. Hence, tenants in stock transfer areas can not only vote on a major area of public service, but also help to develop its shape, and participate in its governance.

Resistance

To date, housing stock transfer in the UK has proved to be a highly contested policy and it is not uncommon for transfer proposals to meet with sometimes well organised and vocal opposition, be it from local or national politicians, trades unionists, local authority tenants and leaseholders, the press or a com- bination of all of these interested parties, such as (in England) Defend Council Housing (Ginsburg, 2005; Daly et al., 2005; Malpass

and Mullins, 2002). 1 Opposition to transfer often centres on the conceptualisation of stock transfer as a form of ‘privatisation’ (Defend Council Housing, 2004)—a somewhat vague term that is, as a result, diffi cult to confi rm or deny unequivocally. Robbins, however, has stated lucidly (if not scientifi cally) some of the key arguments against stock transfer. In essence, transfer is to be opposed, he argues, because it renders tenants more vulnerable to eviction by their landlords, costs tenants more in rents, removes the democratic account- ability of the landlord and reduces opportun- ities for tenant involvement (Robbins, 2002). It is not within the scope of this paper to critique the arguments for and against stock transfer. However, it is worth pointing out that the charge that stock transfer constitutes

a form of ‘privatisation’ is one that appears to work effectively on behalf of anti-transfer campaigners (Pawson, 2006) and there is some evidence to suggest that local authorities have specifically sought to rebrand stock transfers as manifestations of ‘community ownership’, in a bid to side-step accusations of ‘privatisation’ (Mooney and Poole, 2005).

Stock transfer is, therefore, a highly contested policy. Nevertheless, the potential benefi ts that may accrue to politicians and administrators

394 JOHN MCCORMACK

within a local authority that transfers its stock are considerable. In most cases, these include a capital receipt for the council, substantial pay increases for senior housing offi cers (House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, 2003) and political kudos for the ruling ad- ministration. However, the risks are consider- able too, such as abortive project set-up costs, political embarrassment, loss of a signifi cant investment opportunity for the housing stock and the possible necessity of cost-cutting measures, including job losses. In this context, it seems fair to say that few local authorities are in reality relaxed about the outcome of stock transfer ballots. Indeed, the tensions facing local authorities between, on the one hand, meeting their obligation to inform tenants in a ‘full and fair’ way of the pros and cons of stock transfer (ODPM, 2004, Annex N) and, on the other, advancing the broader fi nancial and corporate interests of the council by, in effect, advertising stock transfer, is an issue that has been addressed previously (Taylor, 1999). The issue of tenant consciousness is, therefore, central to the outcome of stock transfer proposals and several of the interested parties involved—

be they supportive of, or opposed to, stock transfer proposals—in turn have an interest in infl uencing how tenants think—i.e. their consciousness.

There are a number of formal ways in which the issue of tenant consciousness is addressed in the stock transfer process. These generally include the provision of information to ten- ants on transfer by specially hired commu- nications consultants, through media such as DVDs and videos, newsletters, exhibitions etc. In addition, independent tenant advisers are appointed in order to provide impartial com- mentary and advice to tenants on the trans- fer proposals as they develop. This includes the independent tenant adviser—as well as designated civil servants—scrutinising in- formation and proposals circulated by both the disposing and purchasing landlords,

and verifying their accuracy and impartial- ity (DTLR, 2001). Furthermore, the offi cial guidelines on stock transfer—the Housing transfer manual (ODPM, 2004)—put an obligation on local authorities to arrange the provision of training for tenants, in order that they may participate effectively in the devel- opment of the stock transfer proposal.

However, whilst formal communications to tenants regarding stock transfer proposals are subject to scrutiny by a number of parties, informal communications—including those coming from organised anti-transfer cam- paigners, as well as casual, ad hoc discourse amongst residents on the subject of stock transfer—are not. Taylor has suggested that costly, professional communications exercises by social landlords to advertise stock transfer cannot always be guaranteed success in the face of informal, resistant discourse and counter-narrative amongst tenants. As a result, there is no simple, deterministic relationship between the amount of money disposing landlords spend trying to advertise stock transfer and the propensity of tenants to vote in favour of the proposal (Taylor, 1999). Consequently, whilst it is true to say that, in some cases, stock transfer proposals meet with relatively little overt resistance (be it collective or individual), in many cases ten- ants are subjected to signifi cantly different perspectives and communications on the pros and cons of transfer, all of which have one thing in common—a desire to perme- ate and infl uence the consciousness of tenants and the subsequent interventions of tenants in relation to the stock transfer process.

‘Better the Devil You Know’: Submerged Consciousness

In a previous research exercise, I asked four tenants actively involved in stock transfer initiatives in their neighbourhoods (none of whom had ever met) what they considered to

be the views of most of their fellow tenants in

HOUSING STOCK TRANSFERS 395 relation to their respective transfer projects. rather than a judgement in the truest sense

Three of the interviewees responded with of the word. There is no process of enquiry exactly the same statement: ‘Better the devil and information-gathering, and no real con- you know’ (McCormack, 2008). Indeed, com- sideration of options, including refl ections menting upon the relative popularity of upon the status quo. Instead, the phrase rep- council housing amongst social housing resents a subject position characterised by fear, tenants, Ginsburg comments, “Better the despair and disempowerment, and it is these devil you know has long been the watchword” feelings—rather than cognitive assimilation (Ginsburg, 2005, p. 118). Clearly, the phrase of data—that infl uence decision-making. is a cliché and hence its meaning is taken for

granted: namely, to resist change. However, Freire

if one looks at the statement more closely, it The concept of submerged consciousness does, in fact, signify a number of things, other expounded by the Brazilian educator and than simply a fear of change

philosopher Paulo Freire (1921–97) embraces virtually all of the properties associated

– Choice: it is a ‘Hobson’s choice’, involving with the phrase ‘better the devil you know’. two imperfect options, but a choice none- Infl uenced greatly by Fromm (1942), Freire theless, requiring agency on the part of the has argued that, although not historically individual.

inevitable, all societies—industrial and

– Ambivalence: although preferred to a change developing—are characterised by dehuman- option, the status quo is not something one ising oppressor–oppressed relations (Freire, feels positively about.

1970/1996). The oppressors seek to sustain

– Absence of epistemological curiosity: one their power over the oppressed not solely—or is not inclined to explore alternatives to even principally—through force, but by the status quo, in order to make a rational, maintaining the oppressed in a state of sub- informed choice.

merged consciousness. This consciousness

– Risk-aversion: there is a degree of familiarity is characterised by a number of features, in- in relation to the status quo and the alter- cluding: resignation and fatalism; passivity; native to this represents a risk that is not, mutism; risk-aversion; fear of freedom and apparently, worth contemplating, let alone fear of change; preoccupation with survival taking.

(rather than dreaming of new horizons); lack

– Privileging experience: understanding of inquisitiveness; ambivalence towards the gained through experience of the familiar oppressor; ‘magical’—or fanciful—beliefs; is accorded more value than understanding and identifi cation with the oppressor (and the that might be gained otherwise regarding oppressor’s world-view) (Freire, 1974/2005). the change option.

Indeed, Freire argues that one of the char-

– Resignation and fatalism: the choice one has acteristics of submerged consciousness is to make concerns the lesser of two evils: ‘adhesion to the oppressor’ there is no sense of hope for a better future, just one that does not get any worse.

Under these circumstances [the oppressed]

– Passivity: one is not intervening positively cannot ‘consider’ [the oppressor] suffi ciently to help shape the options available, but is clearly to objectivise him—to discover him

‘outside’ themselves. This does not necessarily

instead accepting them as given.

mean that the oppressed are unaware that they are downtrodden. But their perception

Broken down in this way, ‘better the devil

of themselves as oppressed is impaired by

you know’ represents an instinctive reaction,

their submersion in the reality of oppression.

396 JOHN MCCORMACK

At this level, their perception of themselves as opposites of the oppressor does not yet signify engagement in a struggle to overcome the contradiction; the one pole aspires not to liberation, but to identifi cation with its op- posite pole (1970/1996, pp. 27–28).

This concept of ‘adhesion to the oppressor’ seems to lend itself to paraphrasing as, ‘better the devil you know’. Given that the other fea- tures of submerged consciousness are also refl ected in the analysis of this cliché, there appears to be a prima facie case for adopting Freire’s concept of submerged conscious- ness in an analysis of tenant participation in housing stock transfers.

Oppression: A Freirean Perspective

According to Freire, the oppressors deploy a range of tactics in order to keep the oppressed in a state of submerged consciousness. Chief amongst these is conquest of the oppressed mass through the banking of myths; that is, issuing as unproblematic and uncontested ‘facts’ the world-view of the dominant op- pressors. This world-view centres on the principle of the world as an ahistorical, fi xed entity, impervious to the will of mankind and governed by the omnipotent, reifi ed forces of ‘destiny’, ‘fate’ and the ‘market’. The oppressed internalise this world-view, including myths that the oppressors propagate regarding the oppressed (such as their alleged inherent inferiority—drunkenness, laziness, unworthi- ness, etc.) and resign themselves to ‘reality’, as presented to them by the oppressors. As

a result, they adapt to the world, accept the dominant oppressor narrative in a fatalistic manner and remain silent; they do not con- template the world critically and do not have their own independent story—their reading of the world—to tell.

Other means of maintaining the oppressed in a state of submerged consciousness in- clude: manipulation (in which the oppressors seek to head-off an autonomous emergence of the oppressed by organising the oppressed

on terms favourable to the oppressors, rather than allowing the oppressed to organise them- selves); divide and rule (in which the oppressed become divided amongst themselves as a result of conscious oppressor interventions); and cultural invasion (in which the oppressors impose their lifestyles, ways of being and values on the oppressed, often through the use of mass media, thus resulting in the op- pressed losing their authentic culture). It also includes acts of ‘false generosity’ on the part of the oppressors (or ‘assistencialism’), for which the oppressed are meant to be grateful, but which are in reality, according to Freire, instruments of oppression.

Critical Consciousness, Naïve Transitivity and Vanguardism

Liberation of the oppressed occurs, according to Freire, when the oppressed intervene in the world to change it, based upon critical con- sciousness. In contrast to submerged conscious- ness, critical consciousness is characterised by: refl ection; ‘naming the world’ (speaking out and challenging the dominant narrative of the oppressor with the oppressed’s own reading of the world); inquisitiveness (‘epi- stemological curiosity’); risk-taking; histor- icity; and hope. It develops in a context of on-going, problem-posing dialogue amongst groups of oppressed people (facilitated by a ‘teacher-learner’) and is centred on the dia- lectical relationship of theory and action (‘praxis’), which is itself based on the exist- ential conditions of the oppressed. Awareness of the limitations of what is known in relation to what might be known ensures humility amongst both teacher-learners and the op- pressed (Freire, 2005, pp. 71–72).

Critical consciousness does not emerge directly out of submerged consciousness, according to Freire. Instead, an intervening level of consciousness—naïve transitivity— emerges during times of change, which may, with appropriate leadership, lead to critical

HOUSING STOCK TRANSFERS 397 consciousness. During times of major social address the issues of tenant consciousness and

transition, the dominant world-view of the intervention within a Freirean framework. oppressor becomes exposed. This is because

the status quo—so long presented as destiny— Methodology and Ethics

is itself under serious, sometimes violent, challenge and both the oppressors and their The research fi ndings of this paper are based world-view can—depending upon their upon an ethnographic study of a stock leadership—be seen as vulnerable and open to transfer project in which I was a researcher, challenge. In such circumstances, naïve transi- having been appointed by the tenants of tive consciousness emerges out of submerged Riverside Borough Council to work with consciousness. This is characterised by anger, them throughout the course of their stock rebelliousness, polemics, gregariousness and transfer project as an independent tenant oversimplifi cation of issues. At this stage, al- adviser. Such a study would enable data to though no longer submerged, the oppressed

be generated for analysis (events, behaviour

are not engaged in praxis and epistemological and interactions) in a holistic context. Com- enquiry, and it falls upon ‘authentic’ revolu- mencement of the study deliberately coincided tionary leaders to work with the oppressed to with commencement of my role as tenant develop such critical consciousness.

adviser in April 2006 and, at the time of writ-

However, some revolutionary leaders are ing, the stock transfer project is on-going. unwilling to engage in dialogue with the op- Whilst tenants were aware of my research pressed and dismiss praxis as verbosity. What role (one of them had been an interviewee is needed, they argue, is for revolution to take in the previous research exercise referred to place and for theorising to follow. Such earlier), the fact that I was present principally revolutionary leaders Freire refers to as ‘van- in a consultant capacity meant that tenants guardists’. Vanguardism is characterised by did not have to respond consciously to a re- the issuing of communiqués, by revolution- search agenda, thus enabling the research to ary leaders, to the oppressed, albeit in the

be carried out discreetly. Data were collected

name of emancipation. It is, therefore, anti- principally through observation of various dialogical, and thus oppressive, as it too seeks meetings involving myself and the tenant to maintain the silence of the oppressed and panel (including, in several cases, those at- to dull their critical faculties. It also is indi- tended by council offi cers, local politicians and cative of a lack of faith in the oppressed and consultants), as well as some meetings involv- an arrogant belief in the superiority of the ing myself and council agents only. On one revolutionary leadership.

occasion, I attended, and observed, a staff con-

There are, therefore, a number of stages and ference. As often as possible, data from such types of consciousness that the oppressed can events were recorded as particular observa- experience, according to Freire. They are not tions were made (or quotations uttered). Most totally discrete, compartmentalised states of of the time, however, such data were recorded mind, as they can and do overlap. What is in a journal as soon as possible thereafter. clear, nevertheless, is that these different stages The other main research method utilised was and types of consciousness result in different document analysis (for example, council re- actions—or interventions—on the part of the ports, newsletters, correspondence, etc.). subjects experiencing them.

Riverside presented itself as a site for eth-

This paper will now move on to report on nographic research because of my previous the fi ndings of an ethnographic study of a professional involvement with the tenants stock transfer project and will specifi cally and council of Riverside. I had a detailed

398 JOHN MCCORMACK

understanding of the broader social, political and economic (and historical) context in which the stock transfer project was taking place and so was, myself, less vulnerable to possible totalising, unproblematic, a his- torical narratives.

In view of the fact that the research aims to explore the issue of tenant consciousness in relation to housing stock transfers, it is intended that the principal benefi ciaries of the research fi ndings will be tenants them- selves. In particular, if Freire’s stages of con- sciousness can justifi ably be said to apply to such a context, this opens up a whole range of possibilities relating to policy, practice and the empowerment of tenants involved in housing stock transfers.

Finally, in order to ensure that the interests (individual and collective) of tenants involved in this research exercise are not compromised by my research role, all names referred to in the case study—including that of the council—are pseudonyms.

Riverside Borough Council Stock Transfer Proposal

Background

Riverside Borough Council is a suburban local authority situated in the south of England. The standard of living within the borough is in general quite high and there are some wards within the council that are populated by extremely wealthy households. The vast majority of households are owner-occupied and social housing represents a particularly small percentage of the borough’s housing stock. Many of the tenants living in council housing are elderly and/or disabled, and some

20 per cent live in sheltered accommodation. However, in spite of the affl uence of the area, the local authority itself has in the recent past suffered from a locally well-publicised, and serious, fi nancial crisis, leading it at one point to seek to liquidate its greatest asset—its

housing stock—by selling it to a housing association. The subsequent transfer pro- posal spawned the birth of a local tenants’ association, whose principal aim was to pre- vent the council from selling the housing stock by campaigning against the transfer proposal. Many of the founding members of the tenants’ association believed that their homes were being sacrifi ced unfairly in order to resolve a crisis that affected the council overall and not just the housing department. Consequently, few of them believed that the publicly stated reason for pursuing transfer— the delivery of a programme of improve- ments to the borough’s housing stock—told the whole story. Following an at times bitter and personal campaign, the transfer pro- posal was defeated heavily in a ballot and

a mould was cast for adversarial landlord- tenant relations, characterised by mutual suspicion and mistrust.

The Author as Participant-observer

I fi rst became involved with the council and tenants at Riverside some fi ve years after the abortive stock transfer proposal. Following negotiations with both the council and the tenants’ association, it was agreed that

I would carry out a programme of work that would identify, with the tenants, key issues for them and their fellow tenants in the borough and also help to develop an ap- propriate consultative mechanism in relation to the council as landlord, in accordance with the emerging requirement for tenant participation compacts (DETR, 1999). In carrying out my work with the tenants of Riverside, I determined that I would share my professional knowledge and understanding with them, but would never be smug or ar- rogant in doing so and would respect those views and insights offered to me in a spirit of openness and trust by tenants, howsoever expressed. Quickly, the initial sense of mis- trust that I detected amongst tenants in respect of my role began to dissolve and a

HOUSING STOCK TRANSFERS 399 rapport was established which, over time,

matured into a co-operative and constructive working relationship.

The most signifi cant outcome of my initial work with the tenants of Riverside was an awareness that the biggest issue facing them was a need for double glazing in properties and the installation of modern central heating systems (not all properties at the time had such heating systems). In addition, it was apparent that, in spite of having been subject to a formal stock transfer proposal, very few tenants had a clear grasp of what transfer to

a housing association would involve. As a result, a series of consultation, training and research exercises was carried out with tenants in the borough over a number of years, faci- litated by myself, that aimed to address the issue of how best to ensure the on-going provision of good quality social housing in the borough. Ultimately, following a formal stock options appraisal carried out in ac- cordance with government requirements (ODPM, 2003), representatives of the tenants’ association agreed to support a proposal to embark upon a formal consultation exercise on a transfer of housing stock to a registered social landlord, but on the conditions that, fi rst, such a proposal would be led by tenants, in the form of a specially constituted Tenant Consultative Group, supported by an inde- pendent tenant adviser, and, secondly, the council would nevertheless endeavour to develop a contingency plan for the housing stock—‘Plan B’—in the event of tenants once again rejecting the transfer proposal. The transfer project commenced at the end of 2005 and, at the time of writing it is on-going, with my working closely with the Tenant Consultative Group.

The Tenant Narrative—Naming the Word, Naming the World

By the time the formal stock transfer project commenced, the tenants’ association at Riverside had developed its own story in

relation to council housing in the borough. The key elements of the tenant narrative are as follows

Low priority. Affordable social housing is a low priority of the council. Over the years, it has committed very few of its available cap- ital resources (basic credit approvals, capital receipts) to either investment in the repair and improvement of its existing stock, or the development of new social housing in partnership with registered social landlords, as is common elsewhere. Instead, such funds have been diverted to other, general fund service areas, resulting one year, for example, in the construction of a golf course (a service rarely, if at all, used by council tenants).

Poor governance. Housing has been a party-political ‘football’ within Riverside, with individuals dividing along party lines in housing debates and political point-scoring appearing to be more important to members of the council than rational, informed debate. Very few councillors are interested in social housing, as borne out by their non-attendance at key policy debates, notably in relation to the stock options appraisal. Furthermore, over the years, barely any of them have been council tenants and thus do not empathise with council tenants.

Tenure of failure. Owner-occupation is valued highly by the community in Riverside and the borough has one of the highest rates of owner-occupation in the country, as well as one of the highest levels of stock disposal under the Right to Buy. (Indeed, the council was selling off its housing stock to sitting tenants on a voluntary basis prior to the statutory Right to Buy being introduced in 1980.) Whilst social housing is seldom developed in the borough, the construction of properties for sale on the open market con- tinues at a rapid pace. Much of this property is unaffordable to the grown-up sons and

400 JOHN MCCORMACK

daughters of existing council tenants. Social housing is therefore, a necessary service, but one very much associated with failure in relation to aspirations.

Exploitation. The council’s housing re- venue account (its ring-fenced income and expenditure account relating to housing assets) has indirectly been subsidising the general fund, by, for example, picking up cer- tain costs (such as grass-cutting in communal areas and the maintenance of footpaths) which ought to be shared equitably with neighbouring owner-occupiers, who benefi t from the services concerned.

Responsible tenants. Tenants living in general needs (i.e. non-sheltered) council housing treat the properties in which they live very much as theirs, even though they do not own their homes. Many tenants carry out their own repairs and improvements, if it appears to them that the council is not going to do this work. In some cases, this involves tenants paying large sums of money—for example, to replace obsolete or broken roofs, kitchens, bathrooms, doors, windows, etc. In doing so, tenants are in effect contributing to the asset value of the council’s housing stock and, in some cases, are getting themselves into personal debt in so doing.

Summary. Overall, the tenant narrative in Riverside is one of injustice. Some of the poorest members of the community—council tenants—are being exploited by the council in the interests of the wider, and more pros- perous, community. In addition, whilst the welfare interests of council tenants are not valued by the council, the income stream associated with council housing is. In terms of seeking political redress of this exploitative situation, this is rendered impossible by the fact that council tenants are a very small per- centage of the local electorate. Far from bene- fi ting from the power to elect local politicians

and hold them to account in respect of the housing service, it is precisely the democratic nature of council housing that is the prob- lem: the wider (and in electoral terms much more powerful) community does not value council housing, so the latter is not a signifi - cant vote winner.

On this basis, it was determined by the tenants’ association of Riverside that it would support in principle the development of a stock transfer proposal, as a stock transfer would halt the anomaly and injustice of poorer people subsidising the better-off. However, in coming to this conclusion, the association’s committee members were mind- ful of the fact that, whilst this particular injustice could be redressed, there were risks involved in a transfer proposal that would need to be addressed and resolved prior to a ballot of tenants. In particular, if the valua- tion of the stock, by the council, was taken as definitive by bidding registered social landlords, then a relatively high proportion of tenant rents would be paying simply for transfer of the stock, rather than any im- provements to their properties and services. Similarly, in view of the fact that the options appraisal concluded that any transfer should

be to a newly formed subsidiary of an existing registered social landlord, certain risks relat- ing to the (potential) lack of autonomy of the subsidiary were highlighted (Audit Commis- sion Housing Corporation, 2001). As a result, towards the end of the options appraisal, the tenants’ association drafted its own specifi - cation for transfer, in which all known risks associated with transfer were addressed. This was to be a bottom-line negotiating position when the stock transfer project commenced: if no registered social landlord was prepared to accommodate the tenant requirements, the tenants would pull out of the transfer process.

The Landlord Narrative: A World-view

Since the commencement of the stock op- tions appraisal, Riverside borough council’s

HOUSING STOCK TRANSFERS 401 communications around stock options and,

subsequently, housing transfer—both intern- ally within the council and externally with tenants and other interested parties, such as the media, government offi cials and so on— have been dominated by a managerial dis- course. It can be summarised thus

Decent homes standard. Following the publication of the government’s Communities Plan in 2003, the council must ensure that the housing stock it currently owns can achieve at least a minimum national standard by 2010—the ‘decent homes standard’. In add- ition, this standard must be sustainable beyond 2010.

No real choice. Having carried out a stock options appraisal—which included looking at the possibility of the council remaining as landlord, transferring the stock to a registered social landlord, entering into a private fi nance initiative with a partner organisation in the private sector, or setting up an arm’s-length management organisation—only a stock transfer will deliver and sustain the minimum decent homes standard. Indeed, a transfer would enable a higher standard to be achieved on a sustainable basis.

Government-driven. A key factor in the decision to transfer the housing stock relates to the government’s fi scal policy. The latter requires that Riverside pays over more than

a third of its rental income to meet the cost of housing benefi t payments in the borough. By contrast, in the event of a transfer, all surplus monies will be retained by the land- lord and may be spent on improved services and amenities, as well as funding the devel- opment of new homes.

Partnership. The stock transfer proposal will be a partnership between council staff, elected council members and tenants. Tenants will therefore be involved in the development

of the proposal, including negotiating service standards, amenities, rights, privileges, rents and service charges, and no transfer will take place unless a ballot of tenants across the borough endorses the proposal.

Not-for-profi t. In the event of a transfer, the stock will be transferred to a not-for-profi t landlord and tenant representatives will sit on the governing body, thereby exercising more power over landlord services than they currently enjoy.

A bleak alternative to transfer. A report by the council’s financial consultants has suggested that, in the event of tenants voting against the transfer proposal, the council will seriously have to consider reducing service standards, if it is to avoid the unlawful situation of failing to balance its housing revenue account. This will result in homes that are already ‘decent’ eventually dropping below that standard, due to a deteriorating maintenance service, and those that become decent in the next few years also deterio- rating as a result of a limited maintenance service.

Summary. In summary, the council’s posi- tion is best described as a ‘Hobson’s choice’: whilst no transfer can go ahead without the endorsement of tenants, in reality, tenants have little choice at all, if they want their properties to become, or remain, compliant with the decent homes standard. If, accord- ing to the council’s narrative, central govern- ment did not, in effect, tax the council by making it set aside from its housing revenue account vast sums of money each year to meet the cost of housing benefi t nationally, then it would be much easier for the council to deliver and sustain the decent homes standard for its housing stock. Central government is identifi ed as the driver for transfer: it is stipulating the need to spend by setting out

a national standard for council housing, but

402 JOHN MCCORMACK

it is also restricting the resources available to local authorities to meet this need.

Oppression

To date, the stock transfer process at Riverside has seen the council, and its agents working on the stock transfer project, engage in a number of activities that constitute oppression in the Freirean sense. It is not possible to chron- icle and analyse every single incident of op- pression that I have encountered, but some of the principal mechanisms of oppression that

I have identifi ed will now be discussed, along with illustrative data.

Imposing the landlord world-view. The dominance of the council’s managerial dis- course in communications concerning the transfer proposal constitutes a world-view. Vindicating a case previously made else- where by Darcy (2002), this managerial world-view strips the stock transfer project of its broader historical, political and socio- economic context, and conceals important power dynamics in the community. Most notably, there is no reference to the sense of social justice that is the pretext of tenant support, in principle, for the transfer option. Rather, the council is presented as an innocent victim of central government rules and regu- lations. In spite of this, the dominant narra- tive is challenged by tenant activists and, as a result, the wider body of tenants is to a limited extent exposed to differing narratives around the stock transfer.

Silencing the tenant voice. Thus far, the council and its agents have been nervous about tenant representatives exercising an inde- pendent voice in the wider community. For example, a protracted argument developed when the tenants, assisted by myself, pro- duced a newsletter which explained, in their terms, why there had been a delay in the commencement of the stock transfer project and what would happen if the transfer did

not proceed (‘Plan B’). Initially, tenants were (mis)informed by the council’s project man- agement consultants that their newsletter would have to be scrutinised by civil servants before it could be published and distributed. In addition, the council’s lead offi cer for the transfer project—supported by the council’s communications consultants—argued that the tenant newsletter would ‘muddy the waters’ by ‘sending out mixed messages’ to tenants. The council, its agents and a civil ser- vant then criticised the newsletter for being ‘divisive’, ‘infl ammatory’ and ‘alarmist’, and threats were made, fi rst, to refuse to fi nance the printing and distribution of the tenant newsletter (which has been council practice in Riverside for some time) and, secondly, to issue a council supplement with the tenant newsletter, rebutting the content of the for- mer. However, when invited to correct any fac- tual inaccuracies, nothing was forthcoming from council offi cials and advisers, and the only amendments proposed were aimed at minimising embarrassment to the council, even if this was to be at the expense of fac- tual accuracy. In the end, the council relented and allowed the newsletter to be printed, but only after tenant representatives resisted landlord pressure and decided to apply pres- sure themselves by boycotting the project meetings. Apart from wanting to avoid em- barrassing publicity for the council, these attempts by the council and its agents to silence the tenant narrative indicate a lack of faith—and a concomitant reluctance to take risks—in respect of the ability of the wider body of tenants critically to encounter confl icting narratives and form their own conclusions. This is a point noted by some of the tenants

They think we are all thick (Dennis). They think we haven’t got a brain (David).

Appropriating the tenant voice. At the same time that the dispute over the tenant newsletter

HOUSING STOCK TRANSFERS 403 was on-going, the council’s communications council staff and consultants concerning the

consultants were busy contacting tenants tenant demand that no existing staff or pol- and seeking to obtain their input into the iticians from the council should be allowed council’s newsletter. The irony of this was not to act as board members of a stock transfer lost on the tenant representatives and several landlord in Riverside, both the council’s head refused to assist the communications con- of housing and the council’s legal consultant sultants in their newsletter production, as they used the term ‘baggage’ to describe the tenant felt they were being used as mouth-pieces of perspective. In fact, the tenants took the view the council

that, given that council staff and members have shown little interest in the housing stock

They [the communications consultants] when they have actually been the lawful owners won’t allow us to say anything they don’t and custodians of the stock, why would they agree with (Dennis).

be actively interested in the housing service

In the end, pictures of some tenant repre- in the event of it being transferred? The ten- sentatives appeared on a council newsletter ants were using their historical awareness of alongside text that included carefully selected the borough to inform their views on, in this quotes from the same tenants, none of which case, board membership. Describing their contradicted the overall message of partner- views as ‘baggage’, therefore, indicates a path- ship within the newsletter.

ologising of the tenants’ position and offers a pretext for dismissing it. However, in spite of

Imposing the landlord’s language. A the council’s attempt at controlling the dis- number of disputes have arisen in the course course on stock transfer in Riverside, the of the stock transfer project in relation to the tenants were confi dent that other tenants issue of words and language. In particular, the would resist the council’s messages (by—in power of the council to impose its reading of relation to newsletters—‘chucking them all the world on tenants (through newsletters in the bin’) and, instead, listen to those mes- and other correspondence) has been seen by sages put out by the tenants themselves tenant representatives as wishful thinking.

Tenants will listen to us because we talk the

For example, there is a tendency for the pro-

way they do (David).

ject to be described as a three-way ‘partnership’ between council staff, elected members and Banking of communiqués. The consult- tenants. The contentious nature of the con- ation and communication element of the cept of partnership has been documented in stock transfer proposal in Riverside is highly community development literature (Barnes skewed towards mass media (press briefi ngs, et al., 2003) and at Riverside the tenant ac- newsletters, fact-sheets, DVDs) and there tivists see the transfer process as an arena of is little scope for dialogue with tenants. As struggle in which different participants have

a consequence, throughout the project there

different—and sometimes conflicting— has been a tendency for problematic concepts interests. For this reason, tenant support in and issues to be presented in simplistic principle for the transfer option was premised terms—a practice not uncommon in resi- on such a proposal being tenant-led. Never- dent consultation exercises (Cairns, 2003). theless, the council, its agents and civil servants Nowhere has this been the case more so than insist on decreeing the project a ‘partnership’ in relation to the ‘not-for-profi t’ nature of and, in doing so, dismiss the historical con- registered social landlords. Newsletters to text in which the transfer option was endorsed tenants emphasise this and, in doing so, dem- by tenants. Similarly, in a discussion amongst onstrate awareness of sensitivities, amongst

404 JOHN MCCORMACK

tenants, regarding the pecuniary interests of registered social landlords bidding to take over ownership of council stock. In fact, registered social landlords can, and usually do, make profits and those that are non- charitable pay corporation tax on such profi ts, just like any other profi table private-sector business. In addition, whilst such profi ts are not distributed to shareholders as dividends (as they would be in most private-sector busi- nesses), registered social landlords can (and many do) pay performance-related bonuses to staff. Furthermore, some use profi ts to invest in speculative new business ventures, often in areas far removed from their existing tenant base. There is, arguably, nothing in- herently wrong with any of these means of expending profits. The point, however, is that within the stock transfer process no dia- logue has taken place with tenants regarding the role of profi ts within the registered so- cial landlord sector. Instead, the question of ‘profit’ has been addressed in simplistic terms which conceal the true complexity of fi nancial arrangements within the registered social landlord sector and leave many tenants feeling that the broader issue of pecuniary interest in the stock transfer process is being obfuscated.