2015 Passmore Michael 1069
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from the King’s Research Portal at https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/ The responses of labour-controlled London local authorities to major changes in housing policy, 1971-1983 Passmore, Michael Awarding institution: King's College London The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without proper acknowledgement. END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT Unless another licence is stated on the immediately following page this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work Under the following conditions: Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Non Commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works - You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you receive permission from the author. Your fair dealings and other rights are in no way affected by the above. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 26. Sep. 2021 1 MICHAEL PASSMORE THE RESPONSES OF LABOUR–CONTROLLED LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO MAJOR CHANGES IN HOUSING POLICY, 1971–1983 Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Contemporary British History KING’S COLLEGE LONDON 2015 2 ABSTRACT This thesis explores the relationship between town halls and Conservative governments over two policy changes which reduced local autonomy: the Housing Finance Act 1972 imposed rent increases on council housing, and the 1980 Housing Act gave tenants the Right to Buy. The literature on local authority resistance concentrates on high-profile battles between government ministers and Clay Cross and Norwich councils, but the coverage of London boroughs is sparse, except for that on Camden’s defiance in 1972. This thesis aims to assess the responses of eight Labour-controlled boroughs in the capital to the controversial legislation, including Greenwich, targeted by government ministers for being especially ‘difficult’ over the Right to Buy. The thesis examines the extent to which Labour-controlled local authorities sought to resist the government measures, their strategies and the outcomes; splits in Labour groups over implementation and any differences between 1972 and 1980. Attention is paid to the role of local Conservatives in the controversies. The thesis relies on minutes of council meetings and reports in local newspapers, supplemented by some oral interviews. It was recognised in 1972 that for resistance to be effective, Labour authorities needed to agree a common strategy, but attempts to do so failed. While councillors increasingly feared incurring legal sanctions, the Parliamentary Labour Party urged them to accept a compromise which could lessen the rent increases. Camden rebelled for several months, despite a serious split among Labour councillors, and only complied when ministers made their position financially untenable. Labour groups remained more united over implementing the Right to Buy scheme as they had other priorities and could delay or frustrate individual sales. The boroughs did the minimum necessary to operate the government scheme and resisted pressure from ministers over their performance. After initially refusing to implement the 1980 legislation, Greenwich subsequently survived threats of intervention through negotiation. Overall this thesis demonstrates that there was resistance among the boroughs studied to both policy changes which encroached upon their autonomy, but that the political battles were mainly fought on housing issues with Conservative councillors invariably supporting their party in government. 3 CONTENTS page Map of London Boroughs 4 Acknowledgements 5 Abbreviations 6 Some Definitions 7 INTRODUCTION: 8 0.1: Town Hall and Whitehall 10 0.2: Vulnerability of Council Housing to Political Pressure 19 0.3: Selection of Local Authorities and Methodology 26 0.4: The Varied Legacy of London’s Municipal Housing 29 0.5: Material in the Literature on the Political Battles of 1972 and 1980 36 CHAPTER ONE: LONDON BOROUGH POLITICS AND PEOPLE, 1964–83 43 1.1: Waning of Labour’s Old Guard, 1964–74 45 1.2: Opposition to Government Restrictions, 1974–83 56 CHAPTER TWO: IMPACT OF NATIONAL HOUSING POLICY, 1964–83 69 2.1: Political Battles over Council Rents 72 2.2: Conservative Triumph with Council House Sales 84 CHAPTER THREE: REACTIONS TO ‘FAIR RENTS’ BILL, 1971–2 96 3.1: Debates on the Controversial Legislation 97 3.2: Authorities Attempt to Collaborate 109 CHAPTER FOUR: RELUCTANT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1972 ACT 120 4.1: Resistance Softens 121 4.2: Housing Finance Bill Becomes Law 132 CHAPTER FIVE: CAMDEN’S DEFIANCE OF THE HOUSING FINANCE ACT 145 5.1: Political Battle with the Government 146 5.2: Split in Labour Group and Role of the Opposition 158 CHAPTER SIX: RELUCTANCE TO ACCEPT THE RIGHT TO BUY 170 6.1: Reactions to the Legislation 171 6.2: The Right to Buy on the Statute Book 181 CHAPTER SEVEN: PASSIVE RESISTANCE OR ‘MAKING HASTE SLOWLY’ 194 7.1: Delaying Tactics Adopted 195 7.2: Coping with Whitehall Pressure 203 CHAPTER EIGHT: GREENWICH AND THE RIGHT TO BUY SCHEME 218 8.1: A Show of Defiance 219 8.2: ‘Guerrilla Tactics’ 229 CHAPTER NINE: CONCLUSION 244 4 Table A: Housing Stock in March 1966 70 Table B: Housing Stock in December 1971 71 Table C: Housing Stock in December 1978 71 Table D: Proportion of Houses and Flats in December 1978 178 Bibliography 256 Appendix 1: Borough Profiles 271 Appendix 2: Local Election Results 274 Appendix 3: Participants in Oral Interviews 276 Appendix 4: Average Rents of London Borough Councils 278 Appendix 5: Sale of Council Houses by London Borough Councils 279 Appendix 6: Borough Leaders 1965–83 280 Appendix 7: Camden Labour Group Voting Record 1971–73 281 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I began the research for this thesis at the Institute of Historical Research before moving on to King’s in 2010. During this time of part-time study I have received enormous amounts of advice and encouragement from university staff, fellow research students and others. Jenny and the rest of the family have shown endless patience and support, without which I would not have been able to complete the project. Particularly I put on record my thanks to Professor Pat Thane, my supervisor, for her invaluable guidance throughout the undertaking; also to Michael Kandiah, especially for his advice on the oral interviews. I am grateful for the suggestions made by Jerry White at the ‘upgrade’ interview that persuaded me to reduce the number of boroughs to be studied so as to make the task more manageable. Similarly, I acknowledge the helpful comments made at my viva by the examiners John Davis of The Queen’s College, Oxford and Peter Shapely of Bangor University, that led to the inclusion of more background information in the introduction to the thesis. At King’s my thanks go to Richard Vinen, Liza Filby, Virginia Preston and Fiona Holland; also to Tim Ditchfield for his pastoral support. Elsewhere, I particularly wish to mention the assistance received at various times from: Kate Bradley (Kent), Harold Carter (Oxford), Trudy Harpham (London Southbank), Tony Manzi (Westminster), Elaine Walters (IHR) and Rodney Lowe (Cabinet Office). I am indebted to the staff of the various archives and libraries that I used, some of whom were under considerable pressure arising from financial cutbacks; also to Graham Bash for allowing access to his collection of London Labour Briefing magazine. I appreciate the cooperation of the people who participated in the interviews, and of local ward councillor Allan MacCarthy, who has shown a long-term interest in my topic. I am grateful to the following for their help during the final stages of writing the thesis: Mary Salinsky for offering invaluable comments on the late drafts; Andrew Lewis for providing an efficient proofreading service; and Alex Pierce for helping with the map. Although writing a thesis can be a lonely occupation, I was fortunate in having the comradeship of the reading group at the Institute of Contemporary British History at King’s, where members included: Michele Blagg, Chris Knowles, Claire Hilton, Anders Mikkelsen, Kath Sherit, Peter Sutton, Mari Takayanagi and Howard Webber. 6 ABBREVIATIONS AMC Association of Municipal Corporations (superseded by AMA) AMA Association of Metropolitan Authorities (replaced AMC in 1974) CJ Camden Journal CLP Constituency Labour Party DoE Department of the Environment DV District Valuer GLC Greater London Council HG Hackney Gazette HHE Hampstead and Highgate Express HIPs Housing Investment Programme IG Islington Gazette KI Kentish Independent LBA London Boroughs Association LBB London Borough of Brent LBC London Borough of Camden LBG London Borough of Greenwich LBH London Borough of Hackney LBI London Borough of Islington LBL London Borough of Lambeth LBN London Borough of Newham LBS London Borough of Southwark LCC London County Council LGC Local Government Chronicle NEC National Executive Committee (Labour Party) NR Newham Recorder P and R Policy and Resources (Committee) PLP Parliamentary Labour Party RTB1 form Served by tenant on the council seeking to buy RTB2 form Served by council in response to tenant’s application Section10 notice Served by council on tenant specifying price and sale/lease terms SELKM South East London and Kentish Mercury SLP South London Press WBC Willesden and Brent Chronicle 7 SOME DEFINITIONS constitutional The acceptance of the implications of parliamentary sovereignty and view / the constraints and duties that it imposed on local councillors.