Labour conference: Council housing motion goes to card vote

With many of the more controversial motions ruled out of order by the Conference Arrangements Committee, probably the most interesting was a contemporary resolution calling for council housing to be given a “level playing field” when it comes to funding. At the moment, tenants are effectively penalised if they vote against transferring the housing stock out of council ownership and management.

We are still waiting for the results of the card vote, but it looked like it was passed by a fairly solid majority (as similar motions have in previous years) on the floor.

However, there is no sign of progress in government policy. Last year, John Prescott promised a review, but when the motion was passed he petulantly declared that the promise had only held true if the conference had not voted for a level playing field.

The issue rarely makes wave in the media – not too many journalists live in social housing – but is causing huge problems in areas where tenants have voted against stock transfer, such as Birmingham – the largest local authority in Europe. 

We hope that the next deputy leader will be more inclined to listen.

Update: Results of the card vote show that not only was the motion carried by a large margin, but that the CLP delegates – usually fairly pliant for the leadership – only backed the platform by the slim margin of 8000 votes, equivalent to 8 CLPs. Support for a level playing field has grown at every successive conference and the government are close to losing their fig leaf defence that the CLPs don’t back a change in policy.

3 Responses to Labour conference: Council housing motion goes to card vote

  1. Jon Rogers says:

    Hear Hear. In Lambeth we have a newly elected Labour Council forced by the refusal of a Labour Government to follow Labour Party policy into considering an ALMO as the only way they can see to deliver decent homes. This is ridiculous and the Government ought to be following Party policy. What on earth were the NEC doing asking the movers to remit??

  2. Benjamin says:

    Sounds like typical Labour Party “democracy” to me. Folk can vote on a very limited range of issues that do get through the official censorship procedure. But if they vote against the leadership line they are ignored if thy are lucky, or actually sanctioned if they are not.

  3. Ian G says:

    While I was one of the people who composited the ‘fourth option’ motion, I do acknowledge that the government is going some way to meet our concerns, even if not far enough. I think Yvette Cooper promised that ALMO and non-ALMO councils would get funding parity, though I haven’t yet got any details.

    This is very important for the area I come from as the Conservative-set up ALMO is failing badly and may have to be wound up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: