Showing posts with label Community Resistance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Community Resistance. Show all posts

Community Resistance

News of IWCA and other progressive community activities

Vol 4, Issue 12, July/Aug '01
Making A Splash - Govanhill, Glasgow
Addressing The Issues - Harold Hill, Havering
Good First Time Result - Blackbird Leys, Oxford

Vol 4, Issue 11, May/June '01
Election Challenge - Blackbird Leys, Oxford
Significant Victories - Islington , N.London
'Raw Deal' Faced Down - Hackney, E.London
Positive Steps Forward - Harold Hill, Havering

Vol 4, Issue 9, November/December 2000
Hackney, E. London - Council In Crisis
Our Homes: Not For Sale - Impressive Ballot Victories
Scotswood, Newcastle - 'We Shall Not Be Moved'

Vol 4, Issue 7, June/July 2000
North London, Islington - First Major Victory
Glasgow, The Gorbals - Desire For Community Action

Vol 4, Issue 6, April/May 2000
Glasgow, The Gorbals - Clashing with the SWP
Greenock, Gibshill - "This is ethnic cleansing"
South London, Southwark - Concrete Plans or Sterile Slogans?

Vol 4, Issue 5, Feb/March '00
East London, Hackney - Feeling The Pressure
Oxford, Blackbird Leys - Campaign Bearing Fruit

Vol 4, Issue 4, Dec '99/Jan '00
North London, Islington - By-election Contested

Vol 4, Issue 3, Oct/Nov '99
Oxford, Blakbird Leys - Hitting the Headlines
East London, Hackney - "Class Crusaders"

Vol 4, Issue 2, Aug/Sept '99
East London, Hackney - Major Surgery

Issue 75, Autumn 1997
Newtown
Welwyn and Hatfield

Community Resistance, RA Vol 4, Issue 12, July/Aug '01

MAKING A SPLASH - GOVANHILL ,GLASGOW
The Govanhill Pool campaign originated from a public meeting called by the Govanhill/Crosshill Community council in mid January where user groups and council representatives spoke to a crowd of about 120 people. Individuals who gave their names arranged another meeting for the following week and have met weekly since to co-ordinate the campaign. IWCA members were amongst a group of a dozen or so who initiated the campaign.

The campaign had three distinct groups, 'direct action', 'strategy' and 'press'. The IWCA were primarily involved in the direct action and strategy while the IWCA national number was employed by the press group. It was the IWCA who convinced others of the occupation idea, and on the night it happened it was IWCA activists who gave the lead. Since then around two dozen different people have stayed in the building on a round the clock basis while the picket has 70-100 people who at one time or another do quite regular hours. The pool's closure would effect a vast area. One swimming group has 200 members who meet twice a week. The other pool available is in another area approx 6 miles away.

Typically, the left were slow in getting involved even though it was the SWP who had initially tipped-off the IWCA. For two whole months the local Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) branch contributed no more than a few individuals. By contrast the IWCA donated £50 to the campaign with the proviso that we would double it if all the parties equalled the gesture. This was not taken up, but it served to highlight where the IWCA was at, with regards the community generally, and how others, including the SSP, treat the community as a springboard to their 'higher' ideals. In March the IWCA organised a leaflet drop to 2,500 houses in the area. Furthermore, the recent leafleting and canvassing of approx 800 homes by the IWCA has raised the profile both of the IWCA and individuals within it. One IWCA member in particular who was co-opted as a local 'community councillor' prior to the pool campaign has earned support, both as someone who had demonstrated his commitment to the area before the pool campaign became a 'cause celebre', and from elderly women in particular who see him as a 'young blood'. At a rally in March he represented the IWCA on the platform. When elections are held in Sept/Oct he intends to put his name forward for election. As we go to press a judicial review is in the offing. On the 10/7/01 campaigners were given a writ to get out of the pool within the next 48hrs.Having done the canvassing the IWCA will publish the findings. There is also a plan to leaflet 1,200 homes in the area with a call for a public meeting to address the next steps.
See: www.crowd.to/saveourpool

Thornwood Park

The campaign against the closure and developmentof Thornwood Park, began in the middle of March. Along with the IWCA, reps from the SSP and the SWP attended the first meeting. At the first semi-public planning meeting held shortly afterwards - restricted to community/community activists - 50 people attended. The IWCA outlined a strategy which involved canvassing working class opinion on the choices available. While not strictly an IWCA campaign, the IWCA which usually chairs the meetings is hugely influential. For instance, though local MSP and MPs are used for publicity, community work remains at core of the campaign. Of the 3,000 people canvassed a mere 2.3% backed the development plan while 21.2% were for development - only if money was made available for use by the community. 55% opted to fight the council for better services and no development, while a further 21.5% favoured leaving the park as it is.

In total 2,000 signed the petition against the development plans, while a further 300 letters objecting to the planning application were submitted.

A 'fun day' - barbecue, music, etc was organised on with 500 people turning up. Because the SWP/SSP failed to organise any of the things they claimed they would do, and did not collect their ballots for four weeks after the proper date, many in the community have already lost patience with them.

The future: The basic plan is to show the community it can organise events in the park without outside influence, things like cinema, play stations in park, dj workshops, wall climbing, nature trail (area of park with protected life) are all planned. If successful, this will hopefully show what can be done without resources, so therefore opens the question on what could be achieved WITH resources. Overall this work, will build confidence as well as allowing IWCA to work in agenda and introduce faces to the community with a view to the future.

(Latest: a councillor who originally was for the development has stated after ballot that he now opposes development.)

ADDRESSING THE ISSUES - HAROLD HILL, HAVERING
Members of Harold Hill IWCA along with local people, organised a meeting in the Salvation Army Hall in Petersfield Avenue, aimed at organising against the continuing anti-social behaviour which has caused so many problems for all who live in and around Petersfield shops.

Many local people who attended the meeting expressed the view that despite constant calls for something to be done, the police, local councillors and the local MP had failed to come up with any solutions to the problem. Members of the IWCA had made it clear at the start of the meeting that the solutions to the problems had to come from local people, because ultimately it is local people who are suffering.

There were various suggestions as to what could and should be done. One local person suggested a 'name and shame' campaign, another videoing those causing the problems so as evidence was caught on camera, one of the most surprising suggestions was that all local people withhold there council tax in protest at nothing being done.This from many 'law abiding' people who were quite willing to face prosecution in order to show their disgust at how the majority of people on Harold Hill are treated, the IWCA believes this show not only the courage of local people but just how far the political representatives of this area have failed.

A local activist had this to say, "The time is fast approaching when working class people on estates like Harold Hill have to start addressing issues like anti-social behaviour themselves. For far to long this area has had councillors who simply do not care about what goes on - mainly because they don't live here. They only act as though they're interested when elections are coming up, hence the sight of police over the last few weeks, just happens to 'coincide' with the General Election".

Maybe local people agree with Labour councillor and Mayor Brian Eagling who believes "some verbal and physical abuse cannot be stopped." He also claimed "most of the young people are being blamed for things that has nothing to do with them". What was surprising however, was the various articles in the local press detailing how local councillors and the MP were coming together to discuss the problem with -Yes, you guessed it - the mobs of youths involved in the anti-social behaviour.This is of no surprise to us; once again local politicians only start to do something when there is an election around the corner. The IWCA rejects this, believing it is the right of all local people to live free from this type of anti-social behaviour.

A leaflet outlined that, "The IWCA has committed itself to work with local people in trying to find solutions that not only reduces problems like anti-social behaviour, but also involves local people so as we all can live without fear of attacks, vandalism and harassment.Some may ask what is different about the IWCA? Well IWCA activists live and come from Harold Hill - what effects you, affect us.We will be holding various meetings over the coming months in order to discuss the issues that local people want to see addressed; look out for our adverts and come along."

HOUSING REPAIRS: GOT A PROBLEM? WE HAVE
Members of Harold Hill IWCA spent many weeks collecting names of local council tenants who were fed-up with the appaling housing repair service they were getting from Havering council. Over 400 tenants signed the petition, which was presented to the Labour Mayor of Havering Dennis O Flynn. The IWCA held a stall at Hilldene shops where dozens of local people signed the petition. Members of Hackney IWCA, who have been fighting for better housing services for local council tenants for sometime, joined Harold Hill IWCA on the day.

Harold Hill IWCA member Neil Stanton outlined why the IWCA had organised the petition "when the IWCA was formed we promised that we would be a different type of organisation than the political parties in this area. This meant we would actually listen to what issues and problems local people wanted highlighting and act, overwhelmingly the problem of housing repairs was the issue that came up time and again. This meant actually taking the time to visit tenants and discuss what needed doing. It is as simple as that".

GOOD FIRST TIME RESULT - BLACKBIRD LEYS, OXFORD
Blackbird Leys IWCA achieved an impressive result of almost 300 votes at the 7 June County Council election - it's first electoral contest.

Independent candidate, Stuart Craft, who stood on behalf of the IWCA, came in third behind Labour and the Tories with 294 votes, beating the Lib Dems and the Greens, both well-established at local level.

Though only a relatively new organisation, the IWCA has already carried out substantial work on the Blackbird Leys estate which explains how, in the words of one observer, "it came from nowhere," to take 9% of the vote cast.

Through campaigning and canvassing, particular areas of Blackbird Leys have become IWCA strongholds. This support is steadily spreading to other areas.

Friends have also been won through the numerous social activities organised by the local IWCA branch such as the now regular trips to France and Belgium and the upcoming visit to Alton Towers. The ongoing childrens' cinema project is also a very popular feature in the IWCA's repertoire.

Feedback from the IWCA's newspaper, Leys Independent, has also seen a sharp increase since the beginning of this year thus encouraging more people to become involved in the IWCA.

Outwith the election, the IWCA has been the focus of recent media attention since, at the request of local residents, it has issued a press release highlighting two areas of the estate where tenants are being forced to endure heroin dealers as neighbours.

All the local papers carried articles on the subject in which the IWCA was quoted and BBC Radio Oxford featured a very sympathetic interview with the IWCA's Stuart Craft on a walkabout of the afflicted areas. Residents were very pleased with Craft's performance on the show on which he took to task the authorities for their lack of interest in the concerns of Blackbird Leys' residents.

Craft left housing chief, David Trewsdale, and Thames Valley Police to respond to the allegation that they are colluding on a policy of containment against the decent majority on Blackbird Leys and handing dealers and anti-social elements a licence to do as they please as long as they only do it on the estate. For many listeners the allegations were unconvincingly refuted by the authorities.

The IWCA's solution to the heroin dealing problem is straightforward. Arguing that the housing authorities, often knowingly, house dealers and anti-social elements on the estate, the IWCA says the sole responsibility for the removal of those elements lies squarely with the same housing authorities. Further, tenants pay rent to their landlord not just for bricks and mortar but also for a safe and decent environment in which to live. The landlords are not delivering. The IWCA intends to make them.

The housing authorities claim it is the tenants themselves who have the responsibility to stand up in court and testify against the dealers thereby penalising the tenants twice - once by enforcing dealers and associated anti-social elements on them and secondly by asking them to put themselves at risk by testifying in court.

The IWCA says that if evidence is required it is the authorities' responsibility to gather it. In all the cases that Blackbird Leys' IWCA have highlighted, the dealers are clearly in breach of their tenancy agreements on a daily basis. If the will existed, the authorities would have no trouble removing them.

As the only organisation willing to raise these issues, the IWCA has gained a lot of respect on Blackbird Leys. This respect, sometimes hard won, is very important to the building of a sound foundation from which future IWCA victories will spring.

See also : www.bliwca.fsnet.co.uk

Reproduced from RA Bulletin Volume 4, Issue 12, July/Aug '01

Community Resistance, RA Vol 4, Issue 11, May/June '01

ELECTION CHALLENGE - BLACKBIRD LEYS, OXFORD

Understandably, morale in the Oxford East New Labour camp is not what it once was. Results of the recent IWCA survey confirm that support amongst voters is drying up in Blackbird Leys - a ward in which Labour election victories are traditionally taken for granted.

The positively Old Labour Blackbird Leys Councillor, Tony Stockford, has informed IWCA canvassers that he is withdrawing from the June election contest - news which will not be welcomed at all at party HQ. This only increases the headache for New Labour locally.

The struggle to conjure up enthusiasm for the County Council election battle with the IWCA is illustrated by the attendance at the recent Oxford East constituency Labour Party meeting. Only seven members could be arsed to turn up, three of them being cabinet minister Andrew Smith, his wife the City Councillor and ex-Lord Mayor Val Smith, and the aforementioned Tony Stockford.

Issue six of the Leys Independent, an 'election special', is currently in production. Included are the results of the recent house-to-house survey, a profile of the County Council candidate Stuart Craft, and an article entitled 'New Labour red tape prevents use of IWCA name' which explains why the candidate will, for this election only, be standing under an 'Independent' label.

The survey which was taken to over 3,000 doorsteps on the Blackbird Leys estate, has been a real shot in the arm for the IWCA activists involved. The general feeling towards the canvassers was summed up in the words of one resident: 'At least you made the effort to come round, not like the other buggers.' These sentiments have been repeated time and time again across the estate.

Much valuable information has been collected from the survey, and during the course of the campaign the IWCA has been called in to represent residents who are frustrated by the lack of help received from local councillors.

All work and no play, however, makes Jack a dull boy, so the Blackbird Leys IWCA took some time out to organise a trip for 43 residents to Ostende, Belgium, on 24 March. Like the previous IWCA trip to Calais, places in the three minibuses were sold out almost as soon as they were made available. The trip was a very enjoyable day out and all those involved have asked to be put down for the next continental excursion in the summer.

In addition, a coach trip to Alton Towers in July is also being organised to satisfy the demand created by the success of last year's Drayton Manor trip. Also on the social front, the IWCA Children's Cinema has recently gained access to a projector and screen, which will make more regular screenings possible.

Morale amongst Oxford IWCA activists is definitely on the up and up.

Update

The election results for Blackbird Leys were :

Barbara Gatehouse (Lab)
David Brown (Con)
Stuart Craft (Ind)
Mark Hinnells (Lib Dem)
Patricia Dickson (Green)
2,056
583
294
283
135
61.4%
17.4%
8.7%
8.4%
4.0%
 

SIGNIFICANT VICTORIES - ISLINGTON, N. LONDON

The IWCA kicked off the new year with two significant victories. The issue of mobile phone masts being imposed on council estates was thought to be an issue pretty much dead and buried after the Lib Dem council had announced a ban on them. However, a phonecall from a concerned tenant revealed that the council, obviously swayed by the amounts of money being offered by the phone companies, was quietly looking at granting permission for masts again. The IWCA immediately leafletted and petitioned the estate concerned and, working alongside tenant association representatives from across the borough, finally secured an official three-year ban on any further masts from the Lib Dem council. The IWCA then slammed the Labour party and particularly Councillor Shonagh Methven for claiming the victory as their own; "a remarkable feat" an IWCA spokesperson told the Highbury & Islington Express "given the fact that in all the leafletting of estates and meetings I attended, never once did I stumble over Cllr Methven or any of her colleagues."

As part of building up its profile, the IWCA doubled the size of the Spring edition of it's Islington Independent newsletter from a four-page A4 to A3. The lead article announced a hard-earned victory for the local FACTS (Fight Against Council Tenancy Sell-offs) campaign on the Kings Square estate. After facing strong opposition from tenants and campaigners, the council announced that it was finally throwing in the towel and abandoning its plans to privatise the estate. This comes as a particularly bitter blow to the Lib Dems, as the estate is home to the council's chair of housing. The Chair of the FACTS campaign, who is also a Kings Square tenant, told the Islington Independent: "We're delighted that the council have finally been forced to take notice of tenants, it's just a shame that the thousands of pounds that have been wasted on this scheme hadn't been spent on repairs. At the end of the day we refused to be blackmailed, we pay our rent and all we want are the decent homes we are entitled to. What tenants want is investment not privatisation."

A large section of the Islington Indi dealt with the issue of anti-social behaviour. The IWCA's initiatives to tackle the problem received widespread media coverage. The Highbury & Islington Express reported: "The IWCA has put forward its proposals for tackling the problem of anti-social behaviour on Islington's estates. The organisation has called for places to be made available to all the borough's youths at after school clubs and summer play schemes. Members have also proposed that funding should be allocated for a Community Restorative Justice programme where young offenders are taken to meet their victims and make amends for their crimes. An IWCA spokesperson said, "Many people on our estates feel abandoned by the council and police and have become virtual prisoners in their own homes." The Islington Gazette carried two separate articles on the proposals for setting up a CRJ programme and the funding of youth facilities, quoting an IWCA spokesperson as saying: "Apart from the obvious advantage of a better quality of life for all residents of all ages it would also lead to long-term savings due to a reduction in crime."

In the last month, the IWCA have taken both Labour and the Lib Dems to task in the local media over their stance on affordable housing, changes to local democracy and their support for the 'contract culture' which has seen companies making huge profits from providing poor services.

The forthcoming General Election means that we have also witnessed the arrival of the Socialist Alliance onto the political scene. Their campaign in the south of the borough against government minister Chris Smith limps along, lacking any real focus or cutting edge. They appear far happier tailing the borough's other MP, Labour-left Jeremy Corbyn. A number of the LSA's efforts have been warmed-over versions of issues or campaigns taken up previously by the IWCA such as the IWCA's condemnation of the exclusive, yuppie-only, housing to be incorporated into the new Rose Theatre development. When the LSA finally decided to take this issue up, it was a full six months after the IWCA's original intervention!

The IWCA continues to work at raising its profile in the area with a number of new campaigns already planned.

 
'RAW DEAL' FACED DOWN - HACKNEY, E. LONDON

When the Hackney IWCA was launched just three years ago we were faced with an aggressive 'New Deal for Communities' quango dedicated to selling-off council housing in Shoreditch. There was no organised opposition, and of course all three political parties in the area supported it, as did the three glossy magazines delivered in the area by the Council, the New Deal and the private company that manages the local council housing.

We came out very strongly against the New Deal, branding it a "Raw Deal." Now things have changed to the extent that the New Deal is no longer a major threat and we can now use it to bring about real gains for the area. The New Deal organisation has officially bid for £55 million of government money to refurbish every flat in Shoreditch in the next seven years and dropped all plans for privatisation. Their magazine - which has twice carried full page attacks on the IWCA in previous years - has recently covered a meeting we helped to organise to plan for a campaign of withholding rent in protest at rent rises.

The IWCA has not achieved this on our own - and a number of local tenant activists can take a lot of credit - but we can also state that it would not have been possible without our consistent presence in meetings, in the letters page of the Hackney Gazette and in the columns of our newsletter, the Hackney Independent. What we managed to do was to give confidence to the strongest tenant activists that, not only did they not have to accept wholesale privatisation, they didn't even have to accept any compromises of a few blocks being sold off or the PFI scheme. When the New Deal's own rigged survey results came in, showing that 93% were against their estates being sold, the New Deal officers should have realised that the game was up. But they still put forward their "preferred option" of demolishing 20% of the council housing. Unfortunately for them, 100 angry tenants turned up at the meeting to observe the Board, and all the work they had done at house-training the most amenable "community representatives" was lost, as the Board felt the pressure and voted for full refurbishment of all council housing.

While the Hackney Socialist Alliance has been concentrating on "Taxing the Rich" and "Cancelling Third World Debt", the IWCA has been growing in numbers and influence by consistently taking up the immediate interests of the area's working class majority.

Below we re-print an article from the recent issue of the Hackney Independent - expanded from four-page A4 to A3 and delivered free to 15,000 homes in our target area - which shows the kind of practical work we have been doing:

Harwood Court - the block that fought back
Tenants in one of Shoreditch's most neglected blocks have shown what can be achieved when people work together to stand up for their interests. Hackney Council and the New Deal, until recently, believed that the tenants wanted Harwood Court knocked down. Until, that is, somebody actually asked the tenants.

The IWCA has been active in Harwood Court since September 2000, working alongside tenants and asking them what they want for the block, through a series of canvassing sessions. At every stage, the tenants have been consulted and involved and as in most blocks the tenants all agree what the main problems are - security, repairs and cleaning. Because a lot of the low rise blocks in the area have security doors, Harwood Court is an obvious target for a number of anti-social elements and the tenants have suffered from more drug dealing, muggings and intimidation than most blocks. Evidence of vandalism and hard drug use is obvious to see and the day before one of our tenants' meetings, a young girl was the victim of a serious sexual assault in broad daylight on the stairs. On top of this, many of the flats didn't have central heating and the wind whistles in through dodgy windows.

IWCA members worked with several tenants to collect signatures calling for entry phones to be installed and for a full refurbishment of the block to be carried out, holding meetings in the lobby, drawing up a manifesto of tenants' priorities and organising a delegation of tenants to put the petition to the New Deal Board, who have the money to make a difference. The fact that 90% of the flats in the block signed up to the petition and that tenants themselves went to put their case, meant that the New Deal Board agreed to support the proposals for entry phones and work is now underway to improve life in the block. Coincidentally, since the IWCA and tenants got active in the block, the council have started putting central heating into all flats, which is a start. But pressure needs to be kept up to make sure that entry phones are installed and the longer term goals - like refurbishment - aren't forgotten like all the previous promises.

There's more to be done and we're not complacent that change will happen overnight, but as long-term tenant June Cleevely said "Morale in the block was very low and it was good to see the IWCA come in and take some interest. This encouraged people to feel that they could change things". The success of the Harwood Court tenants shows what can be achieved when community politics addresses the real issues.

 
POSITIVE STEPS FORWARD - HAROLD HILL, HAVERING

Recently, in the London Borough of Havering, an independent candidate, Neal Stanton stood on a working class-first ticket in a local council by-election in Harold Hill; a huge, sprawling, suburban estate. From a standing start the candidate, up against Labour, Tories, Lib Dems, UKIP and the pseudo Residents Association (the second biggest 'party' on the council), came fourth with 134 votes or 11%; just a few votes short of pipping the RA to third.

Shortly after the election, Neal, a former local Labour party Chairman, announced the launch of the Harold Hill Independent Working Class Association. He told the Harold Recorder: "Today sees the launch of an exciting new political force in Harold Hill. The Harold Hill IWCA is a community-based organisation which aims to redress the present diabolical situation where the working class majority on Harold Hill have no real representation. We will start straight away to address the problems faced by the residents and tenants on Harold Hill, through organised campaigns, community activism and, most importantly, by listening to, and acting on behalf of, the working class of our estate. Already we have been raising issues at the forums, talking to local people and taking up housing problems. However, we are under no illusion about the task ahead. Winning the trust, confidence and ultimately the backing of the community we live in will take a considerable amount of time and hard work."

One of the IWCA's first major initiatives was to organise a public meeting in response to a call from local residents for action to be taken over escalating anti-social behaviour from gangs of youths. The meeting was well attended, with over a hundred people turning up to air their views, and has led to the setting up of a local Action Group to address the problem. IWCA spokesperson Neal Stanton, who chaired the meeting, told the Harold Gazette: "We have got to work together and stick together as that is the only way we will overcome these problems. Everyone I have spoken to has said the troubles have eased since our last meeting a couple of weeks ago. But if the gangs sense we have turned our backs or lowered our guard they will come back. It is very important for us to keep taking positive steps forward. Our newsletter will be a powerful weapon because it will allow people to see exactly what is going on and how we are progressing."

In a relatively short space of time, parts of the community have come together to look at what the community can do to 'help themselves', completely rejecting notions of calling the police or wasting their time on councillors who are simply not interested.

The type of community resistance being carefully built in Havering, dispels the notion that this kind of political alternative can only be built in the so-called 'radical boroughs' of the inner cities.

Reproduced from RA Bulletin Volume 4, Issue 11, May/June '01

Community Resistance, RA Vol 4, Issue 9, November/December '00

HACKNEY, E. LONDON
COUNCIL IN CRISIS


The Labour/Tory coalition that runs Hackney council are threatening savage cuts to services and the sacking of council staff, after the borough treasurer froze all but the most essential spending, due to a huge deficit that could come to as much as £40 million.

Members of Hackney Independent Working Class Association (IWCA) have attended the various demonstrations with a leaflet demanding “No more middle class councillors.” The leaflet made clear the IWCA’s view that “There is no point in looking to any of the political parties on Hackney council. We need to replace the middle class parties on Hackney council with working class representatives. The time for protesting to the council has gone, we need our own representation.”

The IWCA branch in Hackney has been involved in ongoing work in the south of the borough, on a variety of issues. Top priority has been the role the IWCA has played in the campaign against ITNet, the company that runs the privatised housing benefits service.

ITNet runs the service in both Hackney and Islington where they have caused unprecedented chaos and misery. However, the council has announced that it is to take the failing service back in house. And while the council will have to be kept under close scrutiny to ensure there are no u-turns, this represents a great victory for campaigners, and particularly for the IWCA who were, despite what you may read in Socialist Worker, the only political organisation actively involved in the campaign. The IWCA had also held it’s own successful advice surgery, to assist people with their benefit problems.

An IWCA spokesperson told the Hackney Gazette, “Now it’s time to boot out all the councillors who allowed this scandal to wreck so many people’s lives. None of them has a clue, or gives a damn, about what’s going on in the lives of the working class majority they are supposed to represent”

Hackney IWCA have also been active around the issue of mobile phone masts on council estates, where a newsletter has been distributed and are to strengthen the branch by holding an introductory meeting for new contacts and supporters.

hackneyiwca@fsnet.co.uk

 
OUR HOMES - NOT FOR SALE!
IMPRESSIVE BALLOT VICTORIES


John Prescott has recently suffered a number of setbacks to his plans to privatise the country’s entire stock of council housing. Council tenants are now wakening up to New Labour’s plans and local anti-privatisation campaigns have recently won a number of notable victories in places as far afield as High Wycombe and Waverley, South Bedfordshire and Lambeth.

In Lambeth, south London, the council no doubt regret offering tenants a final say in the first large-scale Public Private Partnership scheme, the £440 million Project Vauxhall. The tenants on the Ethelred and China Walk estates voted No to a scheme that would have seen a loss of 411 council homes and the building of 2,500 luxury apartments. This was despite council officers blackmailing tenants by telling them that if they voted No there would be no money for even basic repairs.

With opposition to the privatisation of Birmingham’s 90,000 council homes growing, including a march of tenants and council workers recently, the Labour council narrowly voted to press ahead with the next stage of their plan, the biggest in England. Despite the party leadership threatening rebel councillors with deselection, the plans were voted through with a majority of just eight.

 
SCOTSWOOD, NEWCASTLE
'WE SHALL NOT BE MOVED'


A development plan by Newcastle council named Going for Growth (GOG), demonstrates the reality of another of New Labour’s ‘community-led' regeneration schemes. At first many residents were delighted with COG. Then they realised that the 6,600 homes in both Scotswood, with its stunning view over the river valley and Walker next to the trendy quayside restaurants, were coloured red in the plans. Red indicated: “unviable”, and meant that their homes were to be demolished to make way for developers. Local activist, Gwen Hinde, said “COG is what we wanted: schools, transport, jobs. But they have left us, the community, out.”

Immediately, banners appeared hanging from houses declaring “we shall not be moved”, accompanied with 800-strong meetings and the drawing-up by community activists of their own alternative proposals. Tony Flynn, leader of the Labour council, dismissed their proposals as not “radical” enough. Kevan Jones. Labour’s council cabinet member responsible for development, explained to the Guardian that his leader meant it was all about offering up "large areas [of land] which make it more attractive for developers" Private housebuilders have told the council that this amounts to a minimum of eight hectares - or the size of at least five football pitches - to build houses at prices which would be out of reach for most local residents.

A city-wide Newcastle Community Alliance has now been founded to oppose GOG and look at alternatives. An Alliance organiser summed it up: “Our aim is to get the council to withdraw its proposals for demolition and to make a positive commitment to the participation of the community, based on a genuine sharing of power and co-decision making.”

The council are in dissaray and could be forced to modify or even abandon their plans. A leaked Labour party document has labelled the whole affair a “PR disaster” which might have dire “political consequences”, undermining Labour’s electoral base in the city. It also criticised the party for totally misjudging the public mood and dismissing the opposition as a few SWP’ers. It wasn’t the SWP who had 'Save Our Scotswood’ posters printed and arranged for them to be put up in people’s windows, or they who produced the homemade banners hung from people’s windows said the Labour report.

The Liberal Democrats in true opportunistic fashion, have tried to capitalise on the discontent with Labour by jumping on the bandwagon - they obviously view Newcastle, like former Labour citadels such as Liverpool and Sheffield, as ripe for the taking. Undoubtedly, the community of Scotswood is off it’s knees. In the long term it is essential that a form of organised independent working class politics is developed in the area, not just to protest against Labour or keep out the Lib Dems, but to replace them.

Reproduced from RA Bulletin Volume 4, Issue 9, November/December '00

Community Resistance, RA Vol 4, Issue 7, June/July '00

N LONDON, ISLINGTON
FIRST MAJOR VICTORY


THE IWCA is slowly gaining a solid reputation for setting the political agenda in the areas where it is most active. No moreso is this in evidence than in Islington, North London, where earlier this year the local branch chalked-up its first major victory. The following is a report of recent activity in the area:

Just before xmas the Lib Dems won what had been a safe Labour seat in a council by-election, giving them control of the council. This was the first time Labour had lost Islington since 1968.

Immediately Labour settled into opposition mode, condemning the Lib Dems’ proposals to sell-off council housing. The IWCA was happy to point out their hypocrisy. In a letter to the Highbury & Islington Express an IWCA spokesperson challenged four leading Labour Party members, who had been the most vociferous on the issue, to state where they stood in relation to their party’s national policy, described by The Guardian as planning to “hive-off all council housing within 10 years”. They were also asked, “whether they can continue to stay in a party which is, as former Tory housing minister David Curry put it, ensuring ‘the triumph of Tory policies’”. The subsequent silence was deafening.

This coincided with the distribution of 8,000 copies of the Spring edition of the Islington Independent for the Finsbury and Clerkenwell area. The response to the newsletter was almost instant. Two weeks to the day of the first newsletter going out, the leader of the council, Lib Dem councillor Steve Hitchens, announced a new policy of allocating up to 100 flats a year to the sons and daughters of council tenants. This was obviously in direct response to the IWCA’s highlighting of the housing crisis and it’s call for “a comprehensive building programme of affordable housing, with special provision for the borough’s young people, to hold our communities together”. Soon after the chief reporter on the Gazette telephoned the IWCA for information on a follow-up article he was doing.

The best was yet to come. The IWCA had been active on the issue of mobile phone masts, distributing leaflets on the estates affected, sending-out information packs and raising the issue in the press. On April 13th the front page headline of the Gazette announced a “Ban on Phone Masts” with the council caving into pressure. The following week a delighted IWCA spokesperson told the Gazette that “While the Lib Dems will no doubt claim that this decision reflects their willingness, unlike the previous administration, to listen to the concerns of tenants, we believe it shows that even politicians and town hall mandarins are susceptible to pressure when confronted by effective campaigning by ordinary people”.

Recently the IWCA has been to the forefront of the battle with the council and the private company ITNet, who have taken over the housing benefits service with disastrous consequences. ITNet, who are being paid £24 million by Islington council, are responsible for thousands receiving eviction notices, with many tenants being dragged before the courts and at least one person evicted, all because ITNet had not paid them the benefits they are entitled to. A full-page article in the Islington Gazette featured IWCA members leafleting a benefit office with a newsletter designed to act as a campaigning tool, while also providing practical information on how to claim compensation. Both the Gazette and Express carried the IWCA phone number which has led to the IWCA taking on a number of individual items of casework as well as sending out numerous newsletters. The newsletter has also been distributed to over 170 tenant groups across the borough and won particular praise from the chair of the Pensioners Forum.

Speaking in the Express an IWCA spokesperson announced the setting up of a campaigning and support group called Whose Benefit? “The group is to concentrate on three main areas; providing legal advice, counselling and assistance for those seeking compensation; campaigning and lobbying to ensure that the issue is kept in the public eye and to being about independent public enquiries in both boroughs (ITNet has also caused chaos in neighbouring Hackney Borough) with the aim of holding those directly responsible account­able for their actions and ensuring that justice is seen to be done for the countless victims”.

The profile of the IWCA continues to grow in Islington as it develops a sharp campaigning edge.

 
GLASGOW, THE GORBALS
DESIRE FOR COMMUNITY ACTION


IWCA MEMBERS in Glasgow are fighting to ensure that New Labour’s plans to ‘socially cleanse’ the traditional working class commu­nity of the Gorbals are defeated:

The IWCA was recently involved, as part of GAS (Gorbals Against the Sell-offs) in the collection of a questionnaire on privatisation carried out in conjunction with GWCAHST (Glasgow Wide Campaign Against Housing Stock Transfer). As usual the SWP were conspicuous by their absence on this kind of activity.

The IWCA attended the GWCAHST confer­ence, which had a poor turnout  of 20-25 people, due mainly to the publicity being restricted to ‘lefty circles’. Of particular interest though, was a big shift towards grass-roots community campaigning with the Gorbals flagged-up as a successful model and the attendance of MSP, Tommy Sheridan.

Following the conference the IWCA distrib­uted 3,000 leaflets in the Gorbals area regarding not just the proposed sell-offs but also wider community issues. The leaflet pointed out that “the Labour government have talked, but not listened to, what the working class has been saying. They expect a successful yes vote which goes against all public polls currently carried out. Their advertising for jobs within the proposed Housing Association is a sure indication of how they perceive the vote will go. With this position, they are shown to be both removed and against the working class who they misrepresent”.

A number of calls were received on the back of this activity from local people, including one from an activist already involved in work who wanted to discuss the ‘bigger picture’. There was also calls from those active within GWCAHST who were worried about the left’s desire to overrun the campaign and encouraged the IWCA to become more directly involved.

IWCA representatives attended the next steering group meeting of GWCAHST, where the IWCA’s proposal to initiate days of action in various housing estates was accepted, with those present urging a plan of action to be put together within the next two weeks. The SWP, who were thin on the ground, had their proposal for a demonstration unanimously voted down.

The desire for community action seems to becoming firmly established amongst the serious activists. Now talk is of organising a number of social events, especially for the kids, to further encourage the involvement of the local community. A sure sign of GAS’s successful impact on the community has been the attack on the Chair of the campaign in the media by Labour MSP Frank McAveety.

Reproduced from RA Bulletin Volume 4, Issue 7, June/July '00

Community Resistance, RA Vol 4, Issue 6, April/May '00

GLASGOW, THE GORBALS
CLASHING WITH THE SWP


AFTER news of Glasgow City Council’s plans to make the Gorbals area the latest inner-city working class area to be the subject of ‘stock transfer’ (ie privatisation) and possible demoli­tion was leaked, The Local News reported that “a Gorbals Independent Working Class Association has been created as a result of the revelations”. A local activist sent the following report: “The Gorbals IWCA distributed over 2,000 leaflets in one evening, leading to the Chairman of Gorbals Against Sell-off (GAS), who had already attempted to get residents groups to campaign against the proposed sale, making contact. The IWCA was invited to their next meeting in order to coordinate work as a united group.

The IWCA also leafleted an open day called by the Social Inclusion Partnership (SIP). This proved useful as it meant we had the opportu­nity to talk to a number of people who had received our leaflet previously. During the day we were approached by SNP representative, Jim Byrne, asking who, why and what the IWCA was. Questions were also asked by the local Labour MSP and councillor. Interestingly the SIP open day put on display the divisions placed on each group within the hall and the voting for community services on an either/or basis, with the day shortened by two and a half hours, but still including a one-hour lunch break.

The IWCA attended the next GAS meeting, chaired by Owen Meharry (GAS) and Sean Clerkin representing Glasgow Campaign Against Housing Stock Transfer (GCAHST). The meeting was highly charged with IWCA representatives regularly clashing with members of the SWP, especially as we argued against a small committee and for the meetings to remain fully open, reluctantly, the SWP agreed for names to be taken.

The SWP-influenced GCAHST also gave incor­rect details to members of the IWCA for a conference on the sell-offs called by the Big Issue. This was their first deliberate attempt to prevent the IWCA getting into positions of usefulness.

Subsequent GCAHST meetings have seen the SWP becoming ever more strident in pushing their own programme, their usual mix of lobbying parliament, inviting trade union speakers and leafletting for their May Day rallies.

The IWCA, as well as attending these meetings and challenging the SWP, have also held a meeting with contacts, widening our area of influence and information (who ran residents groups, who opposed sell-offs, etc) and drawing-up proposals to occupy areas listed for demolition. As a footnote, it is worth mentioning that our leafletters were harassed by the police, who claimed that they had received a complaint that we had been selling drugs! Clearly our arrival on the political scene in the Gorbals has not gone unnoticed”.

 
GREENOCK, GIBSHILL
"THIS IS ETHNIC CLEANSING"


COUNCIL TENANTS in Gibshill are outraged by the news that their homes, which give a “breathtaking view of the Clyde”, are to be demolished and replaced with a private development. The scheme had been put together by the Government agency, Scottish Homes, as a joint venture with the council and the Cloch Housing Association.

The council’s director of housing, Tom Keenan, has denied the allegations stating that, “there is no policy to force people out of Gibshill”. “However” he admitted, “a number of people have already chosen to leave the area and potentially other people will be offered the opportunity to leave”. A council insider, quoted in the Daily Record (30.3.00), was more forth­right, “If some really attractive housing starts to pop up, then who knows what sort of people might want to move in? Remember, it’s only 20 minutes up the motorway to Glasgow”.

Andy Best, Chairman of the Gibshill Housing Action Group, said: “Someone somewhere obviously wants to see a lot of barren land in Gibshill which will be attractive to the big private builders. People will be systematically moved out of the place we love and were brought up in because our faces don’t fit in with the grand plan. This is ethnic cleansing”.

 
S. LONDON, SOUTHWARK
CONCRETE PLANS OR STERILE SLOGANS?


SOUTHWARK tenants have mobilised to put a temporary halt to the Council’s plans to sell off all of its remaining housing stock (at 60,000 homes it is the highest in London) to Housing Associations. Around twenty tenants attended a lively meeting in February to discuss ways the plans could be opposed. It was agreed that all Southwark tenants needed to have the implications of transfer explained and, as a result, several large estates have already been targeted by leaflets and canvassers opposed to the sell-offs.

The Council’s Strategic Committee met to discuss the plans in March and were met by an angry lobby of tenants. The Labour council is already vulnerable, with the Lib-Dems, who already control most of the northern part of the borough, breathing down their necks. Following the Committee meeting, the Lib­Dem press release proclaimed that their opposition had been responsible for the “victory”, whereby a decision was put off until the next full council meeting.

However, the Lib­Dems only want “all” the options to be put to Southwark tenants.

While some good work has gone on, the ‘Defend Council Housing in Southwark’ campaign is still largely dominated by the SWP Their influence creates the danger that the campaign will become another vehicle for sterile and irrelevant sloganeering. Already the East Dulwich Estate TA (controlled by the SWP) has produced a leaflet condemning New Labour for having “forgotten that working people fought to get the right to council housing...They would rather spend the money on bombing Serbia and Iraq”. Furthermore, the campaign is now asking all supporters to travel on their coach to Birmingham on 1st April to demonstrate to save Rover! Tenants and activists will need to come up with far more concrete plans if we really hope to worry the Council over the strength of opposition.

Reproduced from RA Bulletin Volume 4, Issue 6, April/May '00

Community Resistance, RA Vol 4, Issue 5, Feb/March '00

EAST LONDON, HACKNEY
FEELING THE PRESSURE


ONE WAY of measuring your success in community politics is to look at the effect you are having on your opposition. Those charged with gentrifying Shoreditch, until now given a free hand by all four political parties repre­sented on Hackney Council, have clearly begun to feel the pressure.

The New Deal publishes a bi-monthly glossy magazine, paid for out of the money that could go on improving Shoreditch estates. They have twice devoted an entire page to attacking the IWCA - in the August and November editions. The August article was in response to the first IWCA newsletter, 10,000 of which were distributed across Shoreditch with the headline of “New Deal” crossed out and replaced with ‘Raw Deal:’

Instead of replying themselves, they conducted an interview with well-known tenant leader, Marie McCourt, under the headline “Raw Deal - what raw deal?” Because of the pressure they were facing, following our newsletter. Marie was allowed to make points not usually seen in their New Deal magazine, and ones we would be happy to support These included “the vast majority of us are against stock transfers and wish to remain Council Tenants to protect our tenures” and “I urge you to support your various TA’S, Area Forums and also those who work tirelessly to prevent the area being over­run by bars, restaurants and clubs.”

In October we went door-to-door in a council block that the New Deal had earmarked for handing over for private renting. The Chair of the Tenants Association was at the meeting, which voted for it, and had not opposed the proposal, or even let any of the tenants know. We got a good response to a petition in the block, and followed that up with a leaflet, which stated, “You may ask why the IWCA is doing this. The answer is that our aim is to involve and represent the interests of Shoreditch’s working class majority. A better question is why didn’t Hackney Council, Pinnacle and the New Deal tell you that that they were making plans to move you out of Charles Gardner Court.”

Instead of admitting that they had made this decision behind closed doors, and should have told the tenants, the November edition of the New Deal responded with a full-page article. They admitted that they had “made some suggestions to the Government for the future of certain estates in the area, including Charles Gardner Court.” They proposed “Market renting of Charles Gardner Court with 10% at ‘stepping stone’ rents for locals subject to completion of tenant consultation.”

Another New Deal article celebrated the visit of Government Minister, Nick Raynsford, who came to Shoreditch to open a new housing development. IWCA members along with other local residents have highlighted this particular development as being a sign of things to come. It is built on Wenlock Barn, the biggest estate in Shoreditch, but rents start at £146 a week, and it is also designed to look different from the estate - to show that it is not for local people. The New Deal was forced to admit that “the new Murray Grove develop­ment aimed at young people has brought mixed reactions from locals. Whilst many agree the new PeabodyTrust apartments are uniquely built with their bolt together construction, it is the price that has locals miffed.” They claim it has brought a mixed reaction - we haven’t found anyone who has a good word to say about it. The local paper, the Hackney Gazette, ended their coverage of the same story by saying the block “had been slammed by nearby residents for being a ‘yuppie’ building.”

Another sign of the pressure that those in charge of regeneration are facing came in the Gazette article celebrating the award of £30 million for the New Deal. Kevin Sugrue, head of the Council’s regeneration agency, Renaisi, used language never heard from the Council’s PR people before, calling for “affordable homes to stop young, working class people born in the area from moving out.” An IWCA activist picked this up in the following week’s paper. Dubbing Renaisi a “gentrification agency” he remarked on his surprise “especially since his New Labour bosses have stated that we are all middle class now.”

This is the pressure that has been built up after just six months’ work. The gentrifiers are not used to being challenged, and we have shown that it is possible to do this effectively. This has further encouraged some of the better local tenant leaders, who until now thought that there was no way of opposing the gentrifica­tion of Shoreditch to pick up the cudgels.


OXFORD, BLACKBIRD LEYS
CAMPAIGN BEARING FRUIT


IN OXFORD. Blackbird Leys Independent Working Class Association has seen its support increase on the estate as its campaign against anti-social elements begins to bare fruit. One family who have plagued fellow residents with abusive behaviour for the past two years, were recently forced to go to the local press to plead that the IWCA call off its offensive. A double page spread in the Oxford Mail November 27th headed “We’ve been branded the neighbours from hell but we promise to mend our ways”, carried an interview with the family in which they held their hands up to all the charges levelled against them in the IWCA newsletter Leys Independent. They also claimed to have seen the error of their ways. Since the article appeared the family has in fact kept their promise, improving the quality of life for their neighbours considerably.

The housing associations on Blackbird Leys/Greater Leys and their bedfellows the New Labour City Council who have made empty promises to have ‘the problem in hand’ over the last couple of years, are obviously none too pleased with the success of this relatively short campaign and the support it has attracted from their tenants. Housing associa­tion executives and local councillors originally tried to extinguish the infant IWCA through a series of meetings/phone calls, where attempts were made to persuade IWCA activists that they would better achieve their aims by abandoning the IWCA and jumping on board housing association/council sponsored (i.e. non-political) projects. This would have obviously ensured that these activists would not be in a position to criticise housing associ­ation/council policy, for fear of losing funding or being shut down etc. Now that the penny has dropped and it is understood that the IWCA, is not prepared to play ball, the authorities have changed tack completely.

Two months prior to the estate’s Christmas party, the Farmstead Management Group, asked IWCA members if they would supply their children’s cinema for the event. This was agreed to. Between this agreement and the Christmas Party, the Blackbird Leys IWCA produced its second newsletter, in which further criticisms of housing association policy were made. It was now made clear that the IWCA was not for sale. Farmstead Management immediately retal­iated, distributing its own material, which included claims that the IWCA was ‘stereo­typing the area and threatened the good work of other, (pet), residents associations’. In addition to a series of abusive phonecalls they even tried to pull the plug on the children’s cinema! Legal action was even threatened over a minor technical detail. The show went ahead, much to the delight of the packed house of local children, and visible chagrin of Farmstead Management.

The dwindling Labour party faithful have also been forced to get off their fat arses and trawl the streets of Blackbird Leys for the first time in years. As well as hinting the IWCA ‘might even be NF’, New Labour have further insulted the intelligence of locals with their own Blackbird Leys newsletter, which surprise, surprise claims that the party is dealing with all the issues that have been raised by the IWCA, top of the list - anti­social neighbours. As an IWCA activist recently pointed out in the Oxford Mail letters page, “If Oxford City’s (New Labour) Council genuinely wanted to rid this area of anti-social elements it would not be carrying out a policy of dumping them here in the first place”.

Reproduced from RA Bulletin Volume 4, Issue 5, Feb/March '00

Community Resistance, RA Vol 4, Issue 4, Dec '99/Jan '00

North London, Islington,
By-election Contested

CLERKENWELL, has now become synonymous with New Labour’s trendy Islington and rebranded as the new cultural sector of ‘Cityside’, with Exmouth Market at its hub where most of the traditional market stalls and shops are being forced out to make way for the cafe/bar cappuccino and trendy trainer brigade.

Living side by side to this Clerkenwell is another Clerkenwell; where sprawling estates are home to some of the most impoverished people in Britain. This has created what the local branch of the Independent Working Class Association has described as a state of “social apartheid”.

This area suddenly became the focus of atten­tion recently when the high-profile Liberal Democrat Councilor, Baroness Sarah Ludford, resigned her seat, in order to join the gravy train in Brussels as a newly elected MEP, prompting a snap by-election for 28 October. 

After discussions with local activists, Helen Cagnoni, a well respected and veteran campaigner for the rights of local working class tenants and residents, declared her intention to stand as an ‘Independent Tenant-Resident’ candidate.

The announcement of the election date coincided with the distribution of 6,000 copies of a four-page issue of the IWCA’s Islington Independent newsletter, especially produced for Clerkenwell and neighbouring Finsbury. The newsletter dealt with a whole range of issues, from Labour and the Lib-Dems, from council house privatisation to local democracy, from youth facilities to an in-depth article on the Finsbury Estate. Local activists reported the newsletter creating a “buzz” on the ground in the area and immediately prompted a number of calls to the IWCA phone line. As the electioneering began in earnest, the newsletter also brought a heated phone call from a Labour Party official incensed by the branding of their candidate, Tim Clarke, as “Tim - Nice but Dim!” and demanding a response within 24 hours or else he “would be contacting HQ”!

In a desperate attempt to make up ground, the Labour Party began issuing a blizzard of leaflets making wilder and wilder promises, with thousands and thousands of pounds being promised to provide repairs, a concierge, security, a youth club and worker on the rundown Finsbury Estate. Afterwards, tenants joked that had the election campaign lasted another week, they would have each been promised jacuzzis with gold taps! Of course the tenants weren’t fooled and the news that accompanied a feverish spate of cleaning by council workers, that Government Minister Glenda Jackson would be arriving on the Estate with the Labour team was to prove a provoca­tion too far. The following morning, the recep­tion that Labour Party officials received was so hostile, they had to leave the Estate and cancel their PR stunt,

Meanwhile, it was suggested that early canvassing returns in what was a safe seat for the Lib-Dems had forced them into fevered door-knocking and a flurry of leaflets as they sought to distance themselves from many of the Labour Party policies they had supported. The party leader was seen canvassing tower blocks, on his own, late into the night.

Of the other candidates, the Tories could only mount a token challenge while the Greens occupied the ground normally reserved for the fringe Left, with their candidate proclaiming that “I will support victims of abuse, exploita­tion, violence (including the long-oppressed people of Vietnam) and hate crimes”.

The independent candidate and her supporters clearly set the agenda, wiping the floor with the other candidates at a hustings meeting as well as distributing two leaflets to all homes in the ward and canvassing all the estates at least once.

However, when the result of the election was announced, the biggest story was one of apathy, with less than one in four turning out to vote. While there was obviously widespread disillusionment with the establishment parties, the vast majority of the working class residents had not been convinced to actually come out and vote for ‘their’ candidate. Still, while campaigners were disappointed with their tally, from an objective view, 12.5% must be seen as a very credible effort, with their candidate taking 1 in 4 of the working class vote in what was a ‘mixed’ ward. Especially when on the same day a Socialist Labour Party candidate in the London borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames, while on admittedly less fertile terrain, polled 16 votes (0.7%) on a higher turnout of 40%. The final Clerkenwell result was:

Lib-Dem: 1127 (55.4%; -4.7%), Labour: 536 (26.4%; +0.7%), Independent Ten/Res: 255 (12.5%), Conservative: 82 (4.0%; -1.5%), Green: 33 (1.6%; -7.l), Turnout: 23.7%

The percentage of the Labour vote held up due to the support of the middle classes, campaigners commented that the bigger the house, the bigger the Labour poster. And while the Lib-Dems lost ground, they still succeeded in trading off the line that not having held power, they should be given a chance.

IWCA activists consider the campaign to be a small but important step to rebuilding working class politics in the area.

Reproduced from RA Vol 4, Issue 4, Dec '99/Jan '00

Community Resistance, RA Vol 4, Issue 3, Oct/Nov '99

Oxford, Blackbird Leys,
Hitting the Headlines

WITHIN DAYS of the launch of the Blackbird Leys IWCA in Oxford, the branch made headline news in the local daily paper. The Oxford Mail's front page screamed 'VIOLENT FILM HERO USED IN LEAFLET - Vigilante image just a bit of a laugh', in reference to the first issue of the branch newsletter, the Leys Independent, which addressed the thorny issue of anti-social neighbours. The newsletter had carried a picture of Travis Bickle character from the movie Taxi Driver, as light relief. In an editorial comment, the Voice of the Oxford Mail, the editor stated:
"No-one would argue against families wanting to live in peace. No-one would deny their right to protest about the anti-social behaviour of a minority and press for those in authority to sort it. To that end we have sympathy with the Blackbird Leys Independent Working Class Association. But we are not too happy with its methods of publicising its aims. If the use of a picture of a deranged, gun-toting character from a violent film was meant to shock, it succeeded. If it was intended to demonstrate the determination of the group to get results, it was alarming. If it was included for light relief it was not funny. There are those who would take this as an invitation to join a vigilante group. They look for this sort of action and the association could unwittingly be encouraging it. If its aim is to assist the police with information rather than action, then we applaud the public-spirited nature of the move. If it is anything more, we urge the members to think again".
The story was picked up by Teletext, which carried an edited version.
2,000 copies of the Leys Independent have been delivered on the Blackbird Leys estate prompting a healthy response from residents and panic from the council and housing associations. The newsletter was raised in the Oxford County Council chamber where the local Labour councillor suggested that "they could be fascists", displaying his complete inability to percieve of progressive working class organisation. Either that, or the councillor has an entirely different agenda. We shall see.
The Blackbird Leys IWCA has also been busy with the launch of its children's cinema. The first show in early September proved very popular. It is hoped that, funds permitting, this will become a regular event.


East London, Hackney
"Class Crusaders"

Picking up on the Hackney IWCA branches hard work, the local paper the Hackney Gazette, devoted a whole half-page feature to the new branch, even carrying the address and phone number. It is reprinted below in full...

CLASS CRUSADERS have called on tenants to fight off a yuppy invasion of Shoreditch and South Hackney. In a leaflet hand-delivered to 8,000 council homes, the Hackney Independent Working Class Association blames spiralling housing costs for forcing out traditional Hackney folk and slams a £50 million government giveaway for being the springboard for the trendy trainer brigade invasion.
In February, Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, announced the £50 million New Deal for Shoreditch re-generation package.
The Hackney Independent Working Class Association fears that Hackney residents will be run out of the area and replaced by yuppies and City business folk.
Peter Suttle, chair of the association, says: "Why are they investing all the money in the Shoreditch area, instead of other places further away from the City like Hackney Wick? Most of the estates marked for redevelopment are either next to the canal or the proposed new train link in Kingsland Road.
"These are prime sites for canalside flats and trendy bars and restaurants and the estate residents will be forced to move away.
"There is nothing wrong with new homes, shops and bars, but we should have new homes for our community and shops and bars that charge prices we can afford and that employ local people," adds Mr Suttle.
Mary Graham, of the Foillingham Court Tenants' Association, told how its bid to buy a shut-down school next door to the estate was turned down in favour of converting it into luxury flats, which are now being sold at prices that few can afford.
The Hackney Independent Working Class Association is aiming to attack council and New Deal policies through independent councillors drawn from residents' associations, who will answer directly to the voters.
"We will support independent councillors", said Mr Suttle. "We want to break away from the established council party system that only represents the middle classes. "We are not Old Labour, or Socialist Workers' Party. We are not a reaction to any extreme right-wing groups. We just want the residents to have a voice".

Hackney IWCA's newsletter, the Hackney Independent, was also reproduced in full, in the August edition of the 'New Deal Trust' info newsletter, distributed throughout the area. Entitled "Raw Deal - What Raw Deal?" the article stated that the IWCA newsletter "contains some innacuracies about the New Deal for Communities, and gave space to "a local resident" to outline her disagreements.
An IWCA spokesperson commented, "The New Deal Trust board (which includes ex-Hackney Chief Executive Tony Elliston) are obviously feeling the pressure; still nice of them to give us the free publicity!"

Reproduced from RA Vol 4, Issue 3, Oct/Nov '99

Community Resistance, RA Vol 4, Issue 2, Aug/Sept '99

East London, Hackney
Major Surgery


THE IWCA has now established itself as a force in Hackney. We have done this by making links with local tenants groups, intervening in debates in the local paper and distributing 10,000 copies of our first newsletter - the Hackney Independent.

As was reported in the February/March edition of Red Action we got started by supporting tenants in one area who are opposing the Canalside developers. Hackney Council 's plan is to move the tenants out, knock their estates down and replace at least half of the homes with private housing (the other half with housing association homes on higher rents and less secure tenancies). Already IWCA members have been involved and gained in their understanding of working class politics through leafleting, supporting lobbies called by the Tenants Association (TA) and crucially, canvassing door-to-door. Some of our members had never canvassed before, yet not one of us was questioned as to why an 'outside ' organisation was canvassing on behalf of the TA - because the TA had already paid their dues through tireless campaigning. Three letters from the IWCA have been published in the Hackney Gazette in recent months. They set out the IWCA 's opposition to the attitude of Hackney 's councillors generally, and the fact that 20 of them have swapped parties in the last three years, "The fact is it doesn 't matter which party a councillor represents, they are all middle class parties competing over the middle class agenda. That 's why the arguments between councillors in the Gazette are about parking, Council management and traffic routes; while they remain silent on issues they agree on like estate sell-offs... Community groups who are prepared to put up candidates in by-elections [should] achieve direct representation of working class interests on Hackney Council."

Commenting on Hackney Council winning a PR award the IWCA said... "How ironic that the council should win an award for a propaganda video aimed at off-loading its responsibilities onto the private sector. This from a council that lies fourth from bottom in the national table of cases of maladministration upheld by the ombudsman. Instead of producing fancy videos of how someone else can do a job of providing decent housing for its tenants, Hackney should direct its resources into giving residents what they want - decent housing and decent services instead of being abandoned to short-term, profit-seeking private landlords."

Most recently the IWCA contrasted two stories covered in the Gazette in the same week, "Peabody Options are building yuppie flats in Sheperdess Walk - which are not 'an option ' for you unless you earn more than £30,000 a year. Meanwhile, the council is pushing through cuts to the well-used and popular Lion Boys ' Club in Hoxton. And now the New Deal Trust plan to make things worse by selling off council housing in Shoreditch. It 's not a new deal Shoreditch is getting - it 's a raw deal."

Under the headline "Raw Deal for Shoreditch", 10,000 copies of the Hackney Independent have been distributed: "City investors and new landlords are queuing up to get their hands on Shoreditch and South Hackney. Because we are so close to the City we are a cheap, attractive target for property investors only too willing to bid for the housing stock Hackney Council can 't wait to get rid of". (Specific plans to defend the Lions Boys Club are currently being discussed.)

Turning to the £50 million the government has announced it is contributing to the New Deal, Hackney Independent stated, "This sounds like a lot, but by the time they pay their consultants and put up new lamp posts and railings there will be very little left. Hackney 's councillors, officers and the housing associations plan to use the New Deal to make a permanent change to Shoreditch. They want to change the profile of the population from it being a working class area to a middle class playground - with canal-side flats within easy reach of the City and all the yuppie bars and restaurants. People in Shoreditch need to face facts. Hackney Council have run down the estates for years. An army of consultants and glossy brochures promoting the idea of privatising your home will soon hit you. The run down estates make a new private landlord seem like a good idea. However, the new homes are not for you - even if they allow you back, you won't be able to afford the new rents. This can and must be resisted".

An invitation to TA 's and community groups to contribute ideas, and discuss what 's happening in the area has led to an ongoing contact with three separate TA 's and as the IWCA profile increases the numbers will grow. Hackney IWCA now has two specific aims - to help organise opposition around the New Deal and to establish a surgery in Shoreditch. As well as taking up people 's problems with the council the surgery will also double as a base of operations. A lot of personal effort will be required from IWCA members - but if it wants to establish itself in the long-term as a serious organisation there is no alternative.

Reproduced from RA Vol 4, Issue 2, Aug/Sept '99

Community Resistance, RA Issue 75, Autumn 1997

NEWTOWN
Birmingham City Council is a bed-rock of Labour sloppiness and corruption. The council bears all the hallmarks of a secure Labour stronghold - urban neglect, expensive and senseless projects and above all, complacency; the belief that come rain or shine their tenure is as solid as rock, their decisions unquestionable and their faceless bureaucracy virtually unaccountable. The city council is in denial - repeatedly failing to recognise the immense problems endured on the estates from day to day.
One such area is Newtown, north of the city. A densely planned 60's housing development and as with most of these estates that haven't already been knocked down, decay has set in. The area is flanked by Lozells, scene of riots during the eighties - part of a wider area now renowned for Yardie gang wars, including several shootings. In Newtown itself a large number of flats and houses are left lying empty, many derelict, anti social crime has rocketed and by day and night youth gangs have an increasingly free reign on the streets.
The police though are not in denial, they've just got little or no regard for the area. Their failure to act, even with the most straightforward of cases implies a deliberate policy of containment. Like the council they have been willing accomplices to the creation of the ghetto of Newtown.
"They do not have our interests at heart but the interest of controlling the whole community. An incident in Alma Way in the summer proves the point. When a police officer was hit by an alleged mugger over 20 coppers raced to the scene within minutes, running around the area like caged animals. Compare that with the following week when a schoolboy on his way home spotted an elderly mugging victim looking dazed. His father called the police and it was days before they eventually came to interview the woman. Enough said." Newtown Independent Newsletter 3/97.
Many aren't privileged with a police visit. These are two relatively unspectacular examples from hundreds since brought forward, highlighting the true police role locally.
To say that the residents had no representation until recently would be an understatement. At the beginning of the year a residents' group, under the auspices of a couple of salaried council mediators, was set up. This hapless attempt by the council at stemming growing discontent amongst the residents was entirely futile, in fact it marked the end of what was left of residents' confidence in the city council. Concerned more with litter problems and disused garages, attracting no more than half a dozen residents and unwilling to confront or even acknowledge the real local issues, the project was doomed to fail.
At the beginning of March people in the area produced and distributed a newsletter entitled the 'Newtown Independent'. Delivered to approximately 1500 homes, the objective was to gather support for a bona fide residents' group, independent of the council and other outside interests. The newsletter asked awkward questions and all the controversial things the council didn't want to hear. The leading article slammed the council-run 'Six Ways Residents Association'.
The Independent covered other topics as diverse as housing, debt, Jobseekers Allowance, mugging and an appeal for sponsorship for a local under 16 football team, Newtown Rovers, after council funding was withdrawn.
Local resident activists were pleased with the response. The newsletter had stirred up a hornets' nest - so when the police and council took measures to find out who it was treading on their toes, the formation of a truly independent group ceased to be just an attractive option and rapidly became an absolute necessity. With the police and council already showing signs of nervousness, it was an ideal time for the community to get organised.
As the seeds of an independent residents group were being sown, the problem of mugging in and around the estate was growing more acute. Reports of attacks were flooding in from across Newtown. Mugging gangs, comprising largely black youth, were operating with impunity. It became apparent that there were particular hotspots where muggers were so self assured that they wouldn't even leave the scene after committing an attack. The very young, elderly and vulnerable were under constant threat, the gangs were virtually controlling the estate by a regime of fear, targeting anyone who stood in their way.
There were isolated acts of retribution - one notable case involved a family member of a mugging victim who systematically hunted every member of a particular gang with a baseball bat. One of the muggers was killed by a car some weeks later after committing another mugging. To protect the community and alleviate the problem needed organisation and numbers, isolated attacks weren't adequate, the support of the whole community was essential.
In an attempt to gauge logistical strength a public meeting was called for 21st March, at Holte School in the centre of Newtown. Some 2000 leaflets were distributed throughout the area.
The leaflets had barely had time to drop on the doormats before the police visited the home of one of the local organisers, whose wife and child had been mugged the previous weekend. The police let it be known in no uncertain terms that his phone was being tapped, not really surprising, but what was intriguing was that they were telling him about it. A shot across the bows perhaps? Obviously a shot from much higher up the police hierarchy than lowly PC Plod.
Increasingly it dawned on the NIRC that they had hit on a raw nerve. This realisation became glaringly obvious when, halfway through their brief the police threw their cards on the table. Identify the muggers, testify in court and in exchange the family would be rewarded with a much sought after council move to an area of their choice. They had obviously done some homework because the family in question had tried desperately for three years to get a move only to be knocked back time and again. Most of the mugging victims on the estate would tell you you'd be lucky even to get a visit from the police after an attack, let alone the offer of witness protection schemes and such handsome and enticing rewards.
The opportunity to turn supergrass was angrily rejected. Having tried frightening off the organisers and then attempting to buy them off. the police were sent packing empty handed.
The response to the leaflets was encouraging - the timing impeccable. Racist elements on the estate were stirring, talking of building barricades "to keep the niggers out". To counter this the NIRC took a strong anti-racist stand-point, in order to ostracise the racists, even before the campaign had started in earnest.
On Friday 21st March the first public meeting took place. 200 or so people turned up with people having to be turned away due to a lack of space in the hall. Many victims spoke emotionally from the floor. Of those present 106 had been mugged, some several times and this was without taking into account a multitude of burglaries and other crimes against the community. The mood was angry, as one by one speakers tore into the police and council. One woman summed up the meeting, "I felt I couldn't do anything on my own but looking at all these people here tonight I feel we can do something."
Clearly there was no turning back. If Newtown was to be anything near habitable the sense of community would have to be rediscovered and the problems confronted head on.
Effectively, Newtown Independent Residents Association, (NIRA) as it came to be called, would have contend with the young gangs for control of the area. A simple choice between working class rule and gangster rule, and the choice was not being overstated. Various suggestions were put forward by residents at the launch meeting - an escort service from a pool of volunteers, thus providing security to the elderly and vulnerable. Outing muggers and where youngsters were involved, confronting families with a view to isolating those who persistently refused to curb anti-social youths. Volunteer street patrols were called for, particularly geared towards mugging hotspots. NIRC's initial concerns about possible calls for saturation policing were quickly dispelled. The overwhelming feeling of residents was that the police had, without any pretence abandoned the area.
On the night of the 21st an official committee was formed, representing a good cross section of the community, white, black and Asian. All with different backgrounds and different stories to tell, but with two things in common - a determination that something was going to be done, and a realisation that the fate of Newtown as a community lay not with the police or absentee Labour councillors or MP s but with the community itself.
For the next fortnight the committee met and discussed the way forward for NIRA. A second public meeting was called for April 4th at Holte School and Leisure centre with a view to putting some of the many proposals into action.
In front of an audience of 150 NIRA supporters the committee announced its plans for a march through the estate on May bank holiday and a campaign to by-pass the council and brick up key alleyways on the estate known locally as rat-runs, used extensively by muggers. The committee appealed for information to be gathered on known offenders. the focus was becoming sharper as the campaign gained momentum. The campaign was on everybody's lips, not just in Newtown but other areas too - spirits were rising.
Towards the end of the meeting a known mugger had the audacity to enter the rear of the hall and was taken outside by a couple of residents and sent packing. Within minutes he had returned with a gang looking for one of the lads who had told him where to get off. Needless to say he was promptly despatched by stewards. Let off lightly considering the circumstances, elderly residents complained that he'd deserved harsher.
A week or so after the skirmish the police contacted the Holte Centre and told them there had to be a police presence immediately outside the building at any future NIRA meetings. Anticipating no further trouble and well aware that the police had always been present anyway, NIRA chose not to argue. However within hours the police demanded representation within NIRA meetings, effectively trying to muscle in on the campaign. The choice was accommodate the police onto the committee or face a ban, not only from the Holte, but all council premises.
Of course the police never expected NIRA to agree to such a demand, the move was blatantly designed to obstruct the progress of the anti mugging campaign, and in the short term it did. The message sent out to Newtown was that it was okay for muggers to use Holte's facilities, but the community in its opposition to them were banned. Like all the authorities countermoves to date, it backfired. When the next public meeting scheduled for April 1 8th had to be cancelled, word quickly spread as to who was responsible and why.
Furthermore, the police had been quick to scupper NIRA's chances of obtaining other venues in the area - the idea being to cut off the committee's lifeline to the community. The police had managed to pull off another PR.. disaster - yet again they were seen to be actively working against the NIRA campaign, whilst the muggers still operated with impunity - proving locally that politics preceded the countless vicious muggings on the police list of priorities. Publicly they paid lip service to the anti mugging initiative, moaning to the press about how they and the council were being locked out by NIRA.
On May 1st residents of one street gathered in front of the press and TV cameras as NIRA bricked up its first rat-run. For several years people had been demanding the council do something about the maze of alleys that wind throughout the estate, the council had done nothing. However within minutes of the wall going up council officials were on the scene; where there's a camera, there's a councillor! The council official whined for the press about how they'd been cold shouldered by the residents association and how the community was "not necessarily going about things the right way".
The empty waffle of the council lackey spoke volumes. Still nursing their wounds a few hours later another council official contacted committee members, threatening "the walls not safe, either you knock it down or we'll knock it down for you". But for all their bluff and bluster it was a case of once bitten, twice shy. That night the unusually quick "Quick Response Team" battened the wall and kindly boarded it to allow the compo to dry.
The committee chairman also received a visit that night, from a police chief inspector wielding more threats - if the march went ahead he would be arrested under the Public Order Act, unless an application for police permission was signed and granted. The offer was firmly refused owing to the fact that such an action requires 6 days notice and with only 3 days until the march, co-operation would have been futile. Quite apart from the principle that the people of Newtown had every right to congregate freely in their own community. Growing used to being snubbed by now the police left empty handed.
On Monday May 5th, residents took part in the anti-mugging march dubbed "Reclaim Our Streets". The march was well supported, with a lot of new, younger faces and plenty of support from residents en route. The media coverage was again favourable with all the local press TV and radio turning out to cover the event. In contrast to the anticipated confrontation the police assigned to tag along with the march had clearly been well briefed on "client relations", going out of their way to sympathise and commiserate with the marchers - clearly one of their better PR moves to date. It was only after the culminating rally, when most NIRA supporters had gone home that the committee chairman was arrested and cautioned under the P.O.A. for organising an illegal demonstration. Just when it was going so well, yet another shot in the foot for community/police relations.
During a series of post-march radio and TV interviews it transpired that NIRA was supposedly planning to hold talks with the council the following week to air their grievances, which was news to NIRA!
The residents spokesperson responded appropriately, "There's only one group of people who represent the community of Newtown, and that's the Newtown Independent Residents Association".
The council, like the police no longer figured in the equation. If the police and council hadn't already done enough to fan the flames of Newtown Independence, the committee were informed later that day that a woman police sergeant, well known locally, had been deployed outside the gates to Yellow Park, where the march had met, helpfully informing people that the march had been cancelled.
The next couple of weeks saw a noticeable shift in people's attitude on the estate. Pensioners were walking out in the open again, handbags and all. Committee members were greeted wherever they went. All over Newtown, people were talking about the campaign. Word got back that the mugging gangs had begun to operate elsewhere, certainly not a victory but a step in the right direction.
The police were clearly unnerved by the "outing" of the mugging issue. Between them, over recent years, the council and police effectively conspired to allow young hoods the run of the area, thereby keeping them out of the more respectable surrounding areas. The police appeared to be containing and simultaneously ignoring the damage inflicted on the community of Newtown for the greater good, in this case a quiet life and the subjugation of a potentially troublesome community, with people too scared to leave their homes, let alone getting organised and demanding answers to exacting questions. Arguably, the final upshot is that the gangs themselves have been used as a form of social control, and like rats to a trap the hoods and muggers fell for it.
. It's ironic that 3 days before the "Reclaim our Streets" march a source revealed to committee members that the police were to launch a high profile "shop-a-robber" hotline the following week, and to compliment this an extra 30 police officers were to be assigned to street patrols and undercover operations on the estate, with a further 30 being promised for the Autumn. Note, the weekend before the public launch of "shop-a-robber" there were no reported street robberies throughout Newtown: compared to an average of 14 cases per weekend, plus those that are not reported. Obviously the NIRA initiative was beginning to take effect, yet the police ignored their own statistics, publicly at least, and chose to proceed with the launch.
Unlike the Council the police were now trying to box clever. Their strategy was and remains twofold. Firstly, by way of zero tolerance policing, the community as a whole would effectively be punished. "People would be stopped but the innocent have nothing to fear. " In an area where a householder might have a choice between 6 months car tax or a fortnights food, innocence in the eyes of the law is a rare virtue. For its audacity and outspoken attacks on the authorities, for its steadfast refusal to acknowledge a police or council role in community matters, for its uncompromising initiatives Newtown would be singled out for an unofficial zero tolerance pilot scheme in the West Midlands. This came one week after the chief constable had publicly denounced the very idea of the zero tolerance strategy being deployed on the streets of the West Midlands. Yet the very same was being announced for Newtown in all but name, in a way making the NIRA a victim of its own success. NIRA anticipated police saturation very early on:
"Some sections of the community have called for a higher police presence. A case of treating the symptoms rather than the disease. However, no-one could argue that the attitude of the police to Newtown is at best indifferent, and more often than not hostile. A heavier police presence, given their current attitude, will only further the notion that Newtown is an undesirable ghetto, where the whole community becomes the problem, as happened in many poor areas in the eighties. Building a wall of riot police around us will do nothing to help our community."
On the 24th May the council knocked down the first concrete wall, that had caused so much controversy at the beginning of the month. Each committee member was notified that the wall would be knocked down as it had been deemed unsafe. The wall lies opposite a row of derelict council houses, thousands of shards of broken glass and crumbling masonry that make a mockery of the councils safety concerns. The media looked on again as brick by brick the wall came down, committee members vowed to the Council and press that the wall would be up again the next Friday unless the council didn't do something themselves. That very afternoon residents on the street were canvassed by council representatives asking if they would prefer the alley bricked up, gates with residents having keys, or wooden fences. Residents told them to brick it up. The committee chairman has since received several visits from more senior council officials begging for talks with NIRA. Needless to say, all requests have been rejected. The single ingredient in the NIRA launch period that has insured its political integrity so far has been its refusal to share a platform with the council or police. Despite numerous attempts at compromise and coercion and even trying to outlaw the organisation, NIRA has stood firm, this has done a lot to command credibility in the eyes of the community.
The problems have not gone away, what has changed though is that the community as a whole are confident enough to stand up and return fire. Newtown is united and fighting back.

WELWYN & HATFIELD
On Friday July 4 Labour leader Jackie Russell announced that after months of secret negotiations the Welwyn and Hatfield District Council had agreed a final settlement with Slough Estates in regard to the £48 million awarded against the council in a high court decision 18 months previously.
Having already handed over 10 million of residents money plus a further £3 million in interest accrued, the final deal was for a further £20 million. A total of roughly £33 million. Council Leader Jackie Russell declared that this amount was "manageable" even though the council's annual budget is £9 million.
One suspects that what she meant was that, the situation was now politically manageable. And that in her estimation Labour, the principle culprits in the scandal might yet escape the wrath of local residents. Just six days later that assessment appears a tad optimistic after a by-election result on July 10 in which the Labour vote collapsed.
The Slough scandal broke late last year with the initial announcement of the High Court judgement and fine of £48 million. Senior officers on the council and group of six Labour councillors were named in the judgement and Justice May offered a damming verdict of their and the council's behaviour:
"There was a policy to tell lies .. from July 1987 onwards, the council was nursing a lie and has set itself a time bomb."
The 'policy of lies' was designed to induce one set of property developers (Slough Estates) to build a shopping mall by lying a about the intentions of another set of developers [The Carroll Group] already building another one up the road. The secret deal would have been worth millions to the Carroll group. So far however there has not been a single prosecution. Indeed the council have shelved any talk of an inquiry into the motives behind the campaign of lies and deception and are attempting to write of Sloughgate as a type of 'natural disaster'. There is cross party support for this approach and were it not for the Residents committee this unbelievable scam would have been implemented without protest. The fact that the deal was based on an illegal act, or that the council had no mandate from the residents to negotiate with Slough, or that the principle architect is being investigated on a separate corruption issues was regarded with benign shoulder shrugging indifference by all the major parties.
In normal circumstances the political pressure would be expected to come from the conventional parties Tory and Liberal but for different reasons, both have tactically supported the ruling Labour group. The Tories because they are also implicated, and the Liberals who simply appear to lack the bottle for the fight. So while a local pressure group The What Went Wrong Committee was a cause of initial embarrassment and concern it began to look as if Labour and its allies would brazen it out.
Then just three weeks before the May 1 district election residents in Welwyn Hatfield decided to stand a candidate against Labour in a single ward in South Hatfield. They decided to contest the ward of George Wenham, one of the councillors named in the High Court judgement. Having been constantly taunted by Labour councillors on the lines, "that if you think you have support stand against us", local resident Debi Piper took up the challenge. Privately, Labour councillors took side bets that she would not get more than 60 votes. After a three week campaign canvassing working class area with an entirely inexperienced team she took 50% of the Labour vote 1100 votes in total. At the count Council Leader Russell and newly elected MP Melanie Johnson were visibly perturbed by the implications.
Though Labour still won, the margin of victory was a 1000 down on a 70% turn out. That this was almost exactly the vote for the residents candidate did not go unnoticed in certain Labour circles. The conspiracy of silence had been breached.
Within weeks another by election was called this time in Welling and the residents were the first to throw their cap into the ring. They also announced that they would "stand residents representatives in next May's Council elections against those who have pursued an unjust and secret deal with Slough Estates".
As intended this put the cat among the pigeons. Now not only were the guilty ie those implicated directly in the affair, but also those being left to clear up, and indeed help 'cover up' the mess afterwards, now also in the frame. The possible ramification for Council Leader Russell herself within a majority of only a couple of hundred were all to clear. So while failing to take on steps in the public interest and standing four square behind her colleagues, all proven liars and almost certainly corrupt, the hint of threat to her own self interest seems to have sparked a hitherto dormant public conscience. Of more immediate concern was the difficulty she had in getting anybody to represent Labour in the ward. Her first choice politely declined the poisoned chalice while second choice decamped to the Anti Sleaze anti Slough campaign!
Within two days of the Residents strategy becoming public; (Saturday to Tuesday; to be precise) Ray Little former Council Leader and the 'dark prince' in the whole affair had been forced to resign from the Labour council. Immediately Russell named two other Labour councillors she felt should fall on their swords. However, with the backing of the newly elected Labour MP for whom Little was the de facto campaign manager they have so far declined. The party is now clearly split on how to proceed.
Meanwhile in the Panshanger ward of Welling, the residents candidate Peter Coen, standing on a No to Sleaze! No to Slough! ticket was getting a good reception, again particularly amongst natural Labour voters. From early canvassing returns the campaign was on course for a shock upset.
Then came the announcement of the settlement with Slough on the Friday before the election. As with the Little resignation the timing was designed, it would appear, to give the impression of Labour, even if little belatedly, taking control of the situation.
As expected it had a direct impact on the campaign, though not entirely the one Labour anticipated. The settlement was lined up as a torpedo against the Residents campaign; orientated as it was to preventing a settlement. Once the settlement was signed and sealed the No to Sleaze! No to Slough! Campaign became in effect redundant.
Despite the ambush the Residents candidate again took over 30% of the Labour vote with just 94 votes! The discrepancy is explained by the fact that the Labour vote itself collapsed!
Labour had crashed spectacularly from 600+ and a 200 majority over the Tories in 1996 to second place with 282. The Tories won with 406 a net gain of all of 6 votes from 1996. Labour tactics had sabotaged the residents electoral plan but were unable to save their own seat. From the figures it is clear that former Labour supporters had initially switched to the Residents campaign, something borne out by the canvassing returns, but saw little point in voting for the No to Sleaze! No to Slough! platform once agreement had been reached. However rather than switch back to Labour the working class simply abstained as the exceedingly low 25% turn down from 42% in 1996 bears out.
Ironically, even though the Residents Campaign polled less than 1,000 votes than in May, as a tactic, it has proved more productive. Allowing for the fact it was the timer rather than bomb itself that went there is still blood in the water. The device of democracy itself is being re - set and the Labour Party now feel that sooner or later it will blow up in their faces.
As a supporter of the campaign told the Big Issue: "Slough wasn't a departure from their normal practice - it was their normal practice. It was a private members club operating beyond the reach of all democratic process. The Slough case was just the deal that went wrong."
What is true for Welling and Hatfield is also true for Labour Party custom and practice up and down the country. Camden, Glasgow, Doncaster Hackney Birmingham, and so on share the common hallmark of sleaze and unchecked corruption and total contempt for the communities that elect them.
Labour, like that other great British institution Her Majesty's Police, is inherently corrupt, and like 'PC Plod' is irreformable, and until challenged from inside working class communities often appear invulnerable.
Because it is only the working class that suffer from the council and police corruption, it is only the working class communities themselves that show any interest in challenging them.
As things stand none of the major parties or institutions even pay lip service to working class interests anymore so increasingly the working class have begun to represent their own interests.
Proof of that is the fact that after a period of little more than three months a small working class residents committee in Welling and Hatfield, has become the boroughs 'official political opposition'.

Reproduced from RA Issue 75, Autumn 1997