Alan Simpson is Labour MP Re: Council Housing

Council housing always used to be one of the great divides between Labour and the Tories.
Even as the ideological hostility that new Labour had towards council housing began to bite, the mythology remained.

New Labour may have been forcing local authorities to sell off or transfer their council housing stock and allowing fewer and fewer new council houses to be built, but we could always argue that the Tories would be worse.

It is understandable, then, that a deafening silence roared out of Downing Street as the Tories announced that, in government, they would support building tens of thousands of council houses.
For the two million households in Britain sitting on council house waiting lists, this must have come as welcome - if perplexing - news.

I will come back, later, to questions on how the Conservative Party could have undergone such a Pauline conversion to council housing. We should begin, though, with a look at how Labour has found itself trumped by one of its own best cards. It all goes back to the Faustian pact of the Blair/Brown era.

Both men were convinced that public spending was a mixed blessing for Labour.
They wanted to be credited for re-investing in the social infrastructure that had been starved of cash during the Thatcher years.

What they didn't want was the political flak that went with it. This was where new Labour stepped in with ideas pinched from the US.

"My daughter could do better than this with her Lego. The Tories only have to promise to fall out of bed in the morning to improve on this record" In practice, it was an approach now referred to as Enron economics - the trick was to take as much spending as possible "off balance sheet." This was where the whole panoply of private finance initiatives, public-private partnerships and the like came in.

In theory, the deals transferred risk from public-sector investment to the private provider.
In practice, it merely transferred assets. The private sector proved remarkably good at transferring risk back to the public sector when things went wrong.

Although taxpayers paid out for the construction contracts (and huge interest payments during the lease-back period), the big bills "disappeared" from public expenditure (and government debt) figures.

As with Enron, however, the bills eventually came in. In an era full of sleights of hand, the retreat from council house-building gave Gordon Brown the gift that would allow him to pretend to be an economic miracle worker.

Economic growth was to be driven from the deregulation of the financial services industry.
While public debt was to be reigned in, private (and personal) debt was unleashed into an era of rapacious self-indulgence. Cutting back on council house-building would have the effect of pushing huge numbers of households into the private sector. It would guarantee a permanent excess of housing demand over housing supply.

When credit was abundant and cheap, this would fuel an inflationary house spiral which, in turn, would deliver huge buckets of cash into the Chancellor's coffers. Every time anyone paid tax on their property moves, the Chancellor's cash registers rang. The retreat from council house-building guaranteed that nothing would take the steam out of the speculative housing momentum, until avarice over-reached itself.

While this may have produced temporary plaudits at Mansion House dinners in the City, it did nothing to change the housing prospects of the poor.

Inexorably, the screw was being tightened on local authorities. New Labour rigged the game of social house-building.

It became almost impossible for councils to hang on to the stock they had, let alone build any more.In the year to March 2009, new Labour had reduced council house-building in England to 520. That means 10 a week.

My daughter could do better than this with her Lego. The Tories only have to promise to fall out of bed in the morning to improve on this record. However, as they step out into the morning sunlight wearing Labour's pyjamas, I suspect that something different is happening in Tory high command.

They will be aware that, for all the Treasury huffing and puffing, very little is coming out of the banking system to fuel new mortgage lending. Transactions are 40 per cent down on pre-crisis levels and there is deep uncertainly about whether the recent recovery in house prices is a real recovery or just a lull before the next storm.

More to the point, the prospects of new private-sector house-building are bleak. During the binge years, developers were busy amassing land banks, upon which to construct their empires. Many did so on ludicrously overvalued land prices. Even the Tories know there is fat chance of anyone agreeing to pay these prices now.

Moreover, the Tories now find themselves having swept the board in council elections, at a time when the years ahead are going to be tough.

If national government is going to be constrained, why not play the local democracy card?
Putting money into council house-building will be infinitely more efficient than passing it to the banks and hoping they will pass wind in the direction of the poor.

If the Tories recognise that restoring the public trust in Parliament is going to take a long, long time, why not begin the democratic renewal from the base?

Localism is a card that can be played as strongly from the right as from the left.

If Cameron is serious about his commitments to decentralised energy, then it makes sense for him to connect the local energy agenda to the local housing one.

Add to this the prospect of translating the plan, in terms of local employment and economic regeneration, and you have the sort of package that Labour used to build its bedrock of support upon. It is not beyond the reach of the Labour Party to reconnect with the virtues of council house-building.

All it has to do is end the love affair with big business and the City of London. How perverse it would be if, in failing to do so, the Labour Party found itself hung by one of its own great flagship achievements. Pass me the Lego.

Liberal Democrat Birmingham Councillor Ayoub Khan Fails To Overturn Ruling In Smear Case

I cant help to wonder if the Liberal Democrat Birmingham Councillor has done himself any justice knowing that the forces are not with him.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg is under pressure to sack one of his rising stars in Birmingham after city councillor Ayoub Khan failed to overturn a judge’s ruling that he behaved in a “scurrilous” manner by attempting to smear a Labour opponent when giving evidence in an election court.

Coun Khan, who is a cabinet member in Birmingham and his party’s prospective candidate for Ladywood at the next general election, hoped to clear his name after Elections Commissioner Timothy Straker QC found that he had made up a “sordid” story in an attempt to falsely accuse Aston Labour councillor Muhammed Afzal of witness nobbling.

Mr Straker, in an election trial in Birmingham last year, also found that Coun Khan, who is a barrister, made up a “unpleasant and unsubstantiated” claim that Coun Afzal’s supporters were responsible for an arson attack on a Range Rover owned by a Liberal Democrat supporter.
More than two years after the trial, Coun Khan (Lib Dem Aston) finally exausted grounds for appeal when two High Court judges ruled against an application for a judicial review into Mr Straker’s findings.

Lord Justice Leverson and Mr Justice Wilkie said there was “no sensible basis” for Coun Khan’s claim that Mr Straker’s findings were perverse or unsubstantiated by evidence. His assertion that Mr Straker’s judgement was flawed was “barely even arguable”.

The High Court ruling prompted an immediate attack by city council Labour group leader Sir Albert Bore, who has written to Mr Clegg urging him to “take immediate action” against Coun Khan.

In a letter to the Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Albert said: “Can you please explain why the Liberal Democrats call on others to hold high standards in public office but have taken no action whatsoever against a man who is running for parliament under your party banner after he was described by a judge as bringing forward a scurrilous and unwarranted allegation whilst under oath in an Election Court and was reported to the High Court for that conduct.

“The public will see the case of Coun Khan is a test as to whether you are serious about the need for politicians to take urgent action to restore public trust.

“If you fail to take urgent action against this leading local Liberal Democrat, we will know that your public statements are no more than hollow rhetoric.”

Sir Albert added: “Now that both the election Court and the High Court have found decisively against Coun Khan, are you going to ignore the judgements of the court or follow through your professed principles?

“A Liberal Democrat inquiry has been claimed to be going on in the case of Coun Khan since last May. Nothing has been reported and it appears to have been buried in the long grass because, despite being the subject of the most serious adverse findings in the High Court, Coun Khan remains your party’s prospective candidate for Ladywood.”

Coun Khan now faces a possible unprofessional conduct hearing, which could result in his suspension as a barrister.

He was reported to the Bar Standards board by Coun Afzal, who alleges that Coun Khan broke the Bar’s code of conduct.

Coun Khan remains determined to fight on in an attempt to clear his name.

He said: “I am disappointed at the judgement. But I was elected by the people of Aston just two weeks after this case in the face of these allegations from my rivals.

“I will continue to fight to clean up Asian politics in Aston and believe Labour are making these complaints because they know they face a fight to hold onto Ladywood.

“For Labour to accuse me of anything in Aston is the pot calling the kettle black.”

“I was treated as a party rather than a witness but was never in a position to defend myself. Now I will be able to present a full defence to the Bar Standards Board.”