BUILD A MILLION

HOMES A YEAR

A Housing Programme
for Labour 15p
A NORTH WEST REGION
LABOUR STUDENTS
PAMPHLET
This pamphlet is produced by NOLS NW Region.
It is not NOLS policy.
 1. "Build a million homes a year"—A housing programme
for Labour
2. Rent Strikes.
3. The Glasgow Rent Strike 1915.
Preface
The North West Region of NOLS
are publishing this. document on
housing as a contribution to
discussion within the labour and
student movements on the question
of housing. The programme it puts
forward are the policies of North
West NOLS, which we will
campaign for in the movement; and
to win students to socialism.
The question of housing is an
urgent one for the labour move-
ment. Hundreds of thousands of
people live in housing 'unfit for
human habitation'. More live in
houses which lack one basic
amenity. Over one million families
are on waiting lists for council
accommodation. Only the policies
outlined in this document could
start to solve the housing crisis—it
is vital the labour and trade union
movement take up this programme
and fight for it to be carried out. It
took years of struggle before
council housing itself was won by the
working class. A mass campaign
for these policies would win the
support of the overwhelming maj-
ority of workers and students to the
Labour Party and NOLS.
The recent period has shown the
Published by NOLS North West Region, 3 Mount Villas, M i l l Lane, Liverpool.
Printed by Cambridge Heath Press ( T U ) , Mentmore Works, 1 Mentmore Terrace,
London E8 3PN.
P. 3
inadequacy of those ideas of
'reforming* the housing system. We
fully support any Labour Council
building new council housing.
However, experience shows that
schemes such as "Housing Action
Areas', and 'General Improvement
Areas', can only scratch the surface
of the problem. Many of the new
estates built recently lack any
facilities for youth, and have
proved to be completely unsuitable
for families. I n some areas, tower
blocks have been demolished, when
less than twenty years old. Yet,
because of the grip of the banks
and finance houses on local
authority spending, councils will go
on paying off interest charges and
loans for another 40 years.
The experiences of Labour
Councils shows the need to break
the grip of thp monopolies on
building. This the document fully
explains.
The history of housing shows in
numerous examples the capacity of
the working class to organise and
fight for better conditions. From
the 1915 Rent Strike in Glasgow to
the recent Clay Cross battles, there
have been many examples of the
Printed May 1978
2
P.12
P.13
working class moving into action on
the questions of rents and condit-
ions. These struggles must, to be
successful, be linked to. the labour
movement. Also while we fully
support these struggles, these
reforms cannot be won without the
question being widened to include
the matter of control of the
resources in housing being brought
under the control of the working
class.
The programme outlined in this
document shows the real way
forward for the Labour movement
on this question. In the coming
period there will be huge battles
along class lines. Housing will
undoubtedly be a major issue. A
clear bold socialist programme is
necessary to win the overwhelming
majority of workers and students to
socialist ideas and break the grip of
the monopolies on housing. Half
way measures will not suffice. This
document is part of the North
West NOLS' campaign for socialist
policies to end the housing crisis.
Gary Home
(NOLS National Committee
North West Region)
March 1978
 mm
BUILD A MILLION HOMES
A YEAR"
A Housing programme for Labour
INTRODUCTION
There are thousands of students
with nowhere to live every academic
year. This year, Hatfield Polytech-
nic sent out a circular to new
students, asking them to bring
sleeping bags with them, as they
could not be guaranteed some-
where to live. What a welcome to
higher education! New students,
trying to understand their courses,
are forced to tramp the streets,
looking for somewhere to live.
There is not one area of the
country which does not have slums,
or 'ghetto' estates, or council flats
where the walls run with water.
Within the working class, there is
huge anger on housing. There is the
need for emergency measures—
nowhere else is the complete
inadequacy of the capitalist system
to meet the needs of ordinary
people so vividly portrayed.
There is tremendous anger and
frustration amongst both the
students and the working class. It is
absolutely vital that NOLS interv-
L P Y S demonttration through the (lumt of LiTMpOOl
enes on the issue of housing;
fighting for a better deal for forced to live i n bed and breakfast rose from £456 for 30 weeks for a
students, but linking this to the accommodation, often miles away single room i n 75/76 to £534 in
needs of the working people for from college. 1976/77.
better housing. A fighting socialist In the last couple of years, However, there is a very sharp
programme on Marxist lines, as because of the cuts i n public division along binary lines, between
outlined in this document; against expenditure, there has been very accommodation in the universities,
the supporters of "rent, interest little expansion in student accomm- the Polys and the FE colleges. I n
and profit"—could win support odation. Yet, even for those the universities, over 45% of
. from thousands of students; espec- students i n halls of residence students can be accommodated i n
ially in the Polys, FEs and Techs, conditions have declined at an halls of residence, i n Polys the
which get the worst deal and have alarming rate. Often the accommo- figure is around 10%, i n the FE
the majority of working class dation provided for students is colleges less than 1 % . For exam-
students. unsuitable or badly built. One ple, Middlesex Poly has less than
university has a disused RAF air 500 places i n halls of residence for
S T U D E N T H O U S I N G CRISIS field for its accommodation, i n around 5,000 full time students.
another the walls are bare breeze For students who do not get
No section of students is immune block—apparently plaster would be accommodation i n a hall of resid-
from the housing crisis. Every a luxury for the students. Hall fees ence, the perils of the private
college has students starting the have risen alarmingly, for example, housing market await them. Land-
year sleeping on gym floors, or at Kings College, London, charges lords ' are well aware of the
 desperate situation facing students,
especially in the non-university
sector. Thus, students are often
forced to take flats in very poor
conditions, with high rents and
with overcrowding. However, land-
lords often welcome students
because they know that they are
more likely to move in two or three
years and, therefore, it is easier for
the landlords to obtain 'vacant
possession". On the other hand, as
a "mobile" section of the populat-
ion, students tend less to fight bad
conditions or organise into
tenant associations.
Every year, more and more
students are forced to squat in
empty properties. In some cases,
the student unions have negotiated
with local authorities for students
to have 'short life' houses which the
students then have to maintain.
However, it would be entirely
wrong for Students Unions to take
responsibility for housing students.
The Students Union exists to
protect and defend the interests of
students and campaign on their
behalf. It is the responsibility of
both the individual colleges and the
government itself to see that there
is enough housing to go round. It is
an absolute scandal that while
whole streets of houses stands
empty, students and working class
people have to sleep on floors, or
live in temporary accommodation.
The fact that so many students
are now forced into the private
housing market shows that the
interests, on housing, of students
and the working class are complet-
ely linked. It would be entirely
wrong to campaign for "Better
Housing for Students", while mill-
ions of workers' families and young
single workers, live in slums!
Students Unions should take up the
fight for better housing, alongside
the Trades Unions, Tenants Assoc-
iations and Labour Parties.
3. W O R K I N G C L A S S HOUSING
In 1844. in his book on "The
Condition of the Working Class in
England", Friedrich Engels ment-
ioned a particularly bad slum house
in Salford. Up to a couple of years
ago that same house was still lived
in. In a nutshell, that one example
highlights the situation in housing
for the working class today. While
it is true that many advances have
been made, with the growth of
council housing, there are still
millioHS of workers living in slum
conditions. However, because of
cuts in repairs and building on the
cheap in the first place,many
council estates have now reached
slum conditions.
For example, in London, home
of Buckingham Palace, Centre
Point, the London Hilton, etc, the
1971 census showed that V* of all
London's homes, housing around
500,000 families,were without eith-
er hot water, a bath or an inside
lavatory.
Almost every area of the country,
especially the industrial areas, still
have slum housing. For example,
there are areas like North Benwell
in Newcastle where 1,000 out of
1,770 homes have no bath or inside
toilet. Overcrowding is also very
common, for example,one house-
wife commented: "Living in the
house, there's nine people. Six sleep
upstairs and 3 down. You've seen
the two rooms upstairs. They're 12
feet by 14 feet." (AUaun 'No
Place Like Home', p23). In many of
the areas of older industrial slums,
built on the cheap by nineteenth
century profiteers, without a proper
damp coursing, damp is a major
problem. One worker commented:
"We began getting damp in the
flat, and after a few weeks, a green
fungus began to appear on the
furniture and the bedding." ( A l l -
aun p.79)
Bad housing can almost compl-
etJy destroy the self respect and
pride of ordinary people. One
mother said "the twins play with a
little girl of six who lives in the
Tower across the road, she was up
here the other evening and she
wanted to go to the toilet. When I
took her down to the toilet she
refused to go in i t . I felt really
humiliated...to think that my
children have got to use the
toilet..." (Allaun p . l l 3 )
There can be little doubt also
that bad housing leads to bad
health. As the "Community Devel-
opment Project" says: "The link
between bad housing and bad
4
health is well known and accept-
ed". (Cutting the Welfare State
p31). A housewife who had moved
out of Glasgow slums commented:
" I ' m a lot healthier since we came
to live here. Maybe its because I ' m
happier, less harassed...The whole
family is healthy as a matter of
fact." (Allaun).
However, it is true to say that
bad housing affects the jvhole of the
working class. Young people,
wanting to move out of home often*
find it almost impossible to find
somewhere to live. In London
thousands of people are homeless,
the majority are young. For
families, especially those with
young children, finding somewhere
to live can be almost impossible.
For old people bad housing can be
fatal.
A London housewife, living in a
street known as "Rachman Row",
described how the damp in their
flat had caused two old age
pensioners to get bronchitis. One
had died, the other had been
taken to hospital. That example
could be repeated thousands of
times in the big cities.
For most working class people,
council housing is the only
alternative to slums. This is their
only prospect of getting somewhere
decent to live. However, because of
building on the cheap, and a failure
to modernise, many estates are now
in a deplorable condition. Some
are regarded almost as prisons; one
tenant declared of an estate in
Hackney, East London: " A l l in all,
its a very unhappy estate. W i t h so
many people on the transfer list, its
ridiculous. Its like a standing
joke..My husband is even willing to
take a drop in wages to get out.
When someone does get out it's a
big event. It travels down the
grapevine very fast. Its like a jail
break. I used to think it was
terrible when people went on rent
strikes in these blocks. But until
you live in one you can't explain
what it's like."
The CDP document "Cutting the
Welfare State" commented: " A -
bout 2,000 people live on the South
Meadowell Estate, N.Shields. This
part of the larger Meadowell Estate
consists of 600 flats in two storey
buildings. They have always been
Homelessness in post war Britain—Workert
overcrowded. About half the flats
have rising damp and many remain
largely as they were when built in
the 1930's." The document went on
simply:"..rats and outside toilets
are no rarity in council housing."
Many estates completely lack any
facilities for the tenants. No
suitable places for children to play,
nothing for old people or young
mothers.Often new estates on the
edge of town are completely
isolated, miles from shops and soc-
ial facilities, with only a poor bus
senice to connect them with the
rest of civilisation. A 'Shelter'
document writing about an estate
in Bradford, said: "Moorland's
most tangible problem is the lack of
facilities, particularly for old
people and c h i l d r e n . i.ere
are 8.000 residents, yet there is no
day nursery or open air play area.
The need for these has become
more acute with more women
working. Waste land has been left
unused for the 25 years of the
estate's life. It tends to be used as a
rubbish dump which encourages
rats to breed."
Apart from people living in
slums or on poor council estates
there are also large numbers of
homeless people. The homelessness
has doubled since 1970. Every day
in that year. 12,874 people applied
for temporary accommodation. By
1975 this had increased to 25,120.
There are one million households
on local authority waiting lists in
for home*
England, nearly 250,000 of these
are in Lx)ndon.
These examples really summar-
ise the housing situation for the
working people in Britain today.
While it would be wrong to deny
that there have been major slum
clearance programmes in the past
period there are still huge prob-
lems.
Often, estates were shoddily built
in the first place,or have not been
properly maintained, becoming
very rapidly 'tomorrow's slums".
Already, tower blocks built in the
1950's are becoming unfit to live in
and are being demolished. How-
ever, the numbers of homeless and
families on waiting lists goes on
growing.
The general environment and
conditions that working class
families face have always been
restricted by finance. Yet at the
same time, the big housing
companies have made huge profits.
The need for a national housing
plan, based on a nationalised
economy must be seen as an
immediate necessity. Ten or twenty
year rolling programmes are no use
to working people living in slums;
only a socialist plan of production
could abolish these conditions.
A national housing plan could
also include control of housing by
the working class—avoiding such
catastrophes as "Tower blocks".
Adequate leisure and other facilit-
ies for estates could be assured.
Homes could be designed to suit
the needs of working !ieople, and
not the abstract iJoas of the
planners and engineers!
That housing is a class issue is
very, very clear. While working
people either live in poor housing or
struggle to pay off a mortgage, the
rich live very well indeed. 'Shelter'
have estimated that about 200,000
families have two homes. In
London, in March 1977, a flat was
advertised to let at £158 per week.
A "single stiicy property" in
Henley on Thames was on offer for
£80,000. Some houses in London
were on offer for over £500,000.
which no worker could earn in an
entire lifetime.
4. H I S T O R Y O F HOUSING
"This shortage (of housing) is not
something peculiar to the present;
it is not even one of the sufferings
peculiar to the modern proletariat
in contradistinction to all earlier
oppressed classes. On the contrary,
all oppressed classes in all periods
suffered rather uniformly from i t .
In order to put an end to this
housing shortage, there is only one
means: to abolish altogether the
exploitation and oppression of the
working class by the ruling class."
(Engels, The Housing Question,p
18).
It is certainly true to say, as
Engels himself did, that since the
industrial revolution, when masses
of workers moved into the towns,
there has always been, poor and
insufficient housing. The industrial
revolution was enormously progr-
essive for society, with huge
expansion in the means of product-
ion, and advances in science for
mankind. The industrial revolution
created the material basis for the
possibility of advancement to
socialism.
However, the industrial revolut-
ion also created huge problems for
the working class, not least of
which was in housing. Thousands of
working people were housed in
'back to back' slums in the
industrial areas. Diseases were
rampant in these areas and
although there was some reform on
public health in the second half of
the century it was not until the
twentieth century'that ^.here was
major change. An American,
writing in 1845, commented on
Manchester: "Wretched, defraud-
ed, oppressed, crushed human
nature lying in bleeding fragments
all over the face of society", and
"every day that I live I thank
heaven that I am not a poor marj
with a family in England."
Engels, in his famous work on
"The Condition of the Working
Class in England" described the
appaUing conditions that faced the
proletariat in the mid-nineteenth
century. He commented "every
great city had its slums". He
described how the working class
were housed in slums in all the
industrial cities. In one area of the
East End of London, about 12,000
people were living in 1,400 houses,
covering less than 400 square
yards. He stated " . . . i t is nothing
unusual to find a man, his wife,
four or five children, and some-
times the grandparents, all in one
single room of ten to twelve square
feet." (p.63)
Thousands were completely
homeless, " I n London fifty thous-
and human beings get up every
morning not knowing where they
are to lay their heads at night.". He
said of Liverpool: " A full fifth of the
populatioii, more than 45,000
human beings, live in narrow,
dark, damp, badly ventilated cellar
dwellings, of which there are 7,862
in the city." (p.69)
The horrors of modern housing—Drumchapel n Olasgow Phoio: Andrew Wiard (Report)
However, the main political
movements on the part of the
working class on the issue of
housing developed following the
organisation of the working class
into the trade unions and the
Labour Party. The twentieth cen-
tury has seen a whole series of
battles on behalf of the working
class on the issue of housing. Some
of theSe have been national
struggles, such as- the movement
against the Housing Finance Act,
others have been more local,
isolated struggles, against an
individual rent increase or case of
bad conditions. However, it should
be pointed out that the organisat-
ion of the working class is not as
strong in the tenants' movement as
it is in the industrial or political
fields. The tenants' associations,
where they exist, are often inactive
for long periods, or take on the role
of 'social clubs' for the estates. The
national organisation (The Nation-
al Association of Tenants' and
Residents' Associations) which was
set up in 1948, is not very strong.
Also the TAs lack the organic links
the Trade unions have with the
Labour Party. However,it would be
entirely wrong to disregard them as
a means of working class struggle.
The first major housing rent
strike this century was in Glasgow
in 1915. Glasgow at this time
probably had the worst housing
conditions in Britain, if not in
Europe. Before the war, the Labour
Party in Glasgow had already
formed a 'Labour Party Housing
.6
Committee', including John Mc-
Lean, John Wheatley and Willie
Gallagher, mainly to campaign for
the right of councils to build
houses.
At the start of the war, in 1914,
thousands of workers had moved
into Glasgow for war work, and
vastly increased the demand for
houses. The private landlords tried
to exploit the situation through
increased rents, and evicted tenants
who could not pay them. However,
the Glasgow tenants, backed up by
the Labour movement (which had
been abandoned by its "leaders" to
the war) fought the rent increases.
The Labour Party Housing
Committee called on the govern-
ment to control rents by law, but
got no response. However, a
"Housewives Housing Association"
was set up by a Govan housewife
and led a tremendous movement of
working class women.
In September 1915, a rent strike
was started to oppose the landlords'
draconian rent increases. By Nov-
ember, 25,(XX) families were refus-
ing to pay rent. When evictions
were attempted there were huge
demonstrations on the Clyde. A
meeting of over 10.(XX) munitions
workers outside the court which
was to have heard the cases (which
was hiir-ienlj droppea iWe
Sherriff) declared that a General
Strike would take place unless the
government acted against the
landlords. Shortly afterwards, the
Rent Restrictions Act was passed,
limiting rents to pre-war levels. The
lesson of the Glasgow rent strike is
clear—that the Tenants' Movem-
ment, with the support of the
Labour Movement can be a mighty
force in changing society.
Another major struggle around
the issue of rents was in St Pancras
in the early 1960s. I t is not possible
to go into detail here on this strike,
suffice it to say that thousands of
tenants were involved in action
against the Tories' vindictive
"differential rents" scheme. Foll-
owing the eviction of two tenants,
in which 800 police were used to
support the bailiffs, there was a
demonstration of over 14,000
outside St Pancras Town Hall.
There was support from the trade
unions locally for the rent strike,
but the struggle ended up in
support for the return of a Labour
Council, which reneged on their
programme of abolishing the hated
rents scheme. This showed the need
to take "rent strike " action to
political action. I f the United
Tenants Association who led the
numerous Tenants' Associations in
the borough, had urged their
members to join the Labour Party
they could have had Labour
Councillors whom they selected and
who would have been more likely,
because of pressure from below, to
carry out the programme.
The late 1960's also saw large
rent strikes against rent increases,
especially amongst GLC tenants in
the East End of London. However,
this struggle ended in the tenants
taking the council to court where
they could never hope to win.
The early 1970's also saw major
movements by the Tenants' Assoc-
iations against the Housing Fin-
ance Act. This notorious piece of
legislation, described by Frank
Allaun as "a raw deal for tenants",
whose aim "is to increase sharply
the rents of SVi million council
tenants...and to raise to 2V2 times
the present rates those of I V 2
million private landlords' tenants
who are still rent controlled."
The movement against the
Housing Finance Act involved both
Labour Councils and Tenants'
Associations. I t was largely conc-
entrated in the industrial areas of
the country, with their tradition for
trade union militancy. However,
although a number of Labour
controlled councils were involved in
struggles against the Housing
Finance Act, the campaign largely
centred on Clay Cross. This council
never implemented the Act until it
was swallowed up by i larger
council in the local government
redistribution. Although the Lab-
our Party campaigned against the
Act, it vacillated on the question
of refusing (illegally) to implement
it. If the Labour Party had
nationally led a campaign for
non-implementation, it would have
been a tremendous blow to the
Tories. As it was, local groups of
councillors were left to face the
"state machine" alone; and inevit-
ably were beaten. Nevertheless the
Housing Finance Act was one
reason for the defeat of the Tories
at the 1974 election.
5.THE ECONOMICS OF
HOUSING
There are enough resources in this
country to build one million houses
a year. Yet, new house building
consistently stays below the 400,0(X)
level. When the 1964-70 Labour
Government set a target of 500,000
new homes per annum, this was
never achieved. Yet there is a huge
demand for new housing. The
Labour Party evidence to the
Government's review of Housing
Finance states: "The kind of
programme required to meet the
most pressing housing needs (with-
out allowing for higher standards
and aspiration adds up to an
average of 730,000 units per year"
(p6). .
It is very clear that the resources
which could lead to a massive
increase-in housing are controlled
by the big companies. For example
in the field of property: when
Amalgamated Investment and
Property collapsed, it was revealed
that they owned virtually the whole
of St Annes on Sea. The Liquidator
commented: " I shall probably be
the man who sells St Anne's." The
early 1970's was the peak time for
property companies,- at one time
the top 20 property companies
owned property worth £3,2(X)
million. The Comftiunity Land Act,
introduced by the Labour Govern-
7
ment to try to take land into public
ownership is unlikely to have any
great effect since it lacks any
element of compulsion.
In the case of the building
companies, and building supply
firms, the big monopolies also have
control. The building industry may
appear to consist of hundreds of
small firms competing \vith one
another. I n reality, it is the big
monopolies which rule the roost.
About 30 of the big firms, such as
Wimpey's, Mcalpines, Laings, etc,
dominate. 1% of the firms control
60% of the industry. A n interview
in "The Times" (19.9.77) with Sir
Maurice Laing having revealed that
Laings get something in the
order of 25% of all the inquiries
that come to the construction
industry. The Laing group has
an annual turnover of £450 million.
In 1975 the major construction
companies made the following
profits:
Laings £11,890,000
Taylor Woodrow £12,070,000
Wimpeys £29,300,000
Much of this was made from
work for local authorities. For
example in 1975, 60% of Laing's
work was done for the public sector
with local authority housing being
the largest part of the work (15%).
All the "big four" construction
companies are involved in internat-
ional work. Of Taylor Woodro\v's
1975 pre-tax profits of over £14
million, 65% was earned abroad.
Bricks stockpiled while thousands
are homeless
Wimpcys has been described as Until their facilities and supplies
"the leading contracting company are under the control of the
in the U K , and one of the largest in working class, there can be little
the world." In 1975 they built 7% hope of an expansion of house
of the houses in the U K . building.
However, the building industry The fact that more houses aren't
also has thousands of small firms. built is because house building is
" L u m p " labour is often widespread controlled by the profit motive, and
in these firms. Because of their not by need. The CDP document
size, and the nature of the building "Profits Against Houses" puts the
industn.-. these firms often use case: "The price of houses for sale
archaic methods—and are often is not determined by what they cost
near to bankruptcy. The taking to build but by what the buyers can
over of the big monopolies, and the afford. And what buyers can afford
drawing up of a national housing depends on the levels of wages,
plan could allow for the use of these credits and subsidies. If govern-
resources to the fullest effect. ment subsidy decreases house prices
The field of building supplies has rise. If credit gets cheaper and
reached a fantastic level of easier to get. house prices rise. As
monopolisation, as the following soon as housing comes theoretically
table shows: within reach of the poorest workers
house prices rise and takes it out of
reach again."
New homes will xjnly be built if
Malcrial Leading Companv Est .share of
U K Muket profits can be made from them. If
costs rise higher than the selling
Asl>esto$ Turner & Newall 55% price, then building simply stops. If
Briclii London Bricli 45% "super-profits" are being made by
Cement APCM 63%
Rugbt 14%
the building firms, the landowner
Tunnell 13% will try to take a "piece of the
t action" and increase his profits.
Plaster- BPB 100% Because there is a housing short-
board Slum conditions in Dundee 1978
Flat age, the "market" pushes prices up
Pilliington 100%
Glass and out of the reach of those at the end the exploitation of working
Glass bottom—it is built into the system
Sanitary Armitage Shanks 30% people who wish to own their own
ware Ideal Standard 25% that it is never possible for everyone home.
IGlvnwedl to buy a decent place to live. Some sections of the Labour
Doulton 15%
Over 52% of households in Party have argued that, because
Twvfords [Reed 15%
International! Britain are now "owner-occup- building societies are non-profit
iers".It is therefore very important making there is no need to
Ceramic Johnson Richards 65% that these people are won to the nationalise them. This is a fallacy
Tiles Pilliingtonsl Tiling I 14% side of the labour movement.Every for a number of reasons. Firstly,
Concrete Marlev 50%
RooHng Redlands 45%
"owner-occupier" is burdened with the directors receive large salaries
Tiles huge interest payments. In 1967/68 — which come from the interest
Readt Reading Mixed 40% the recommended mortgage rate paid by owner-occupiers. More
mixed Conrete Co Ltd was seven and one eighth percent, importantly the building societies
concrete Amev Redstone 12%
in 1976/7, it varied between 10'/2% play a vital role in the finance
table to 12V4% (Green Paper. June 77, market and control huge funds for
Appendix Table 10). investment. In a socialist economy
'London Brick' has been At present "tax relief" is given to it must be ensured that these funds
described as "the largest brick owner-occupiers on mortgage int- are invested in useful industry.
manufacturer in the world." In erest. However, it should be made Thus, the nationalisation of the
1975, they delivered around 2,300 clear tht the bigger the mortgage building societies, with compensat-
million bricks, including all the the more tax relief is received. As ion only on the basis of proven
"fletton" (ie house) brick output. Building Societies generally relate need, under workers control and
That year they made trading profits the amount allowed to be borrowed management, is essential.
of £10,923,000. to income, it is clear that the rich However, in the field of local
The fact that so few companies gain most by this system. The authority building interest pay-
control the bulk of the building and nationalisation of the finance ments also play a decisive role in
building supply industries itself system, including the building stopping more houses being built.
shows the need for immediate societies, could allow for interest Every local authority is over-burd-
nationalisation of these companies. free loans for home purchases; and ened with massive interest pay-

8

Photo: Andrew VS lard (Report)
merits!
For example, in 1975/6 £1,814
million was spent on Local
Authority housing, of this £1,270
million was on debt charges. The
rent income for that year was £907
million, i.e. payments to the banks
and finance houses were over one
third more than the income from
rents. Clearly, rather than local
authority housing being 'subsidis-
ed' by the government, it is in fact
'subsidising' the banks and insur-
ance houses to a huge degree.
The present system of local
authority finance, from 'loans' and
government grants, means that the
government dictates policy and the
amount of housing that can be built
is controlled by the intricacies of
the finance market. This shows
how Utopian the hopes of some
Labour Councils are in believing
that they can solve the housing
problem in their area under the
present system. Any new housing
should be supported, but realistic-
ally the present system glaringly ref-
inforces the need for a national
housing plan based on a national-
ised economy.
The private rented sector has
been on the decline since the first
world war, although there have
been signs recently that there has
been an increase in this section in
city centres. Yet, it is in this sector
that there is the most squalor and
poor conditions. While legislation
has stamped out some of the worst
excesses of 'Rachmanism', there is
still widespread victimisation of
private tenants.
Recently, there has been press-
ure from landlords and big
business, reflected within the
Department of the Environment,
for a relaxation of the legislation on
rent control and security of tenure
because of the shortage of private
rented accomodation. While it is
true that under capitalism, when
there is control of rents or
conditions, houses are taken off the
market the solution is not to return
to a "laissez-faire" situation as the
Tories demand. Instead, the soc-
ialist alternative is to take over all
private rented accomodation.
Councils should use the powers
they have to take over these houses
and flats from the landlords.
The Tories always raise the
question of the small landlord.
Obviously, we would support
adequate compensation of small
landlords—the pensioner with her
life savings "invested" in one
house—but the sharks and gangst-
ers of the property companies who
dominate housing today should not
be compensated. I n this way, the
resources of this sector could be
integrated into a national housing
plan.
The 1974 Labour government
was elected on a programme which
included commitments to a number
of reforms in the housing field, and
to "reverse the disastrous fall in
house building". However, the
reality has been very different.
Since October 1974 the govern-
ment, under the inevitable pressure
of big business, has introduced
massive cuts in public spending.
For example, the White Paper
:"Public Expenditure to 1978/79",
pubUshed before the 1975 budget,
proposed to increase capital expen-
diture on public housing from
9
£1,182 million in 1973/4 to £1,333
million in 1974/5. But in-1969/70,
the figure was £1,710 million.
Throughout 1976 there was a series
of cuts in housing expenditure. I n
July a further cut of £1,012 million
was announced. This included a
total freeze on new council building
temporarily. New housing was to be
concentrated in "stress areas". But
this is a ridiculous argument—eve-
ry major housing area today is a
"stress" area. A Labour Party
Research Paper (April 1977)comm-
ents: " A t present...the govern-
ment's public expenditure cuts are
falling disproportionately on hous-
ing, compared with other social
programmes." It showed that the
1977 White Paper on Public
Expenditure proposed cutting ex-
penditure on housing from 1974/5
to 1978/9 by 17%, but the cut in
housing investment would be
39.6%. .
For example, in 1975 in New-
ham, one of London's poorest
areas, money for "General I m -
provement Areas" was cut from
£1.12 million to £0.22 million. I n
North Tyneside, another poor area,
the cut was from £0.6 million to
£0.1 million.
There have been different rem-
edies to the crisis in housing. The
government's "Green Paper",
published in June 1977, outHnes the
government's approach. I t inc-
ludes some reforms, but also shows
that with present policies,there will
still be major housing problems in
the 1980's. I t fails to make any
clear commitments on resources for
housing—no doubt anticipating
problems far ahead for the
economy.
The 1973 "Labour's Progr-
amme" proposed a number of
reforms in the housing field
including commitmemts to new
building, improvement grants and
increased subsidies. I t also prom-
ised the repeal of the Housing
Finance Act, and measures for
Council Tenants' security and
participation. I t also called for the
nationalisation of land, through a
ten year rolling programme, and
the building up of "public land
banks". I t also advocated munic-
ipalisation of privately rented
property.
 The 1976 Programme advocated
a similar programme of reforms. It
called for a national housing plan.
The establishment of a Housing
Finance Agency, more municipal-
isation and better use of existing
housing stock. It also called for an
expansion of public ownership into
the construction industry.
However, neither programme,
including the more radical one of
1973, fundamentally challenged
the basis of housing and building in
a capitalist economy. Until the
control of resources is taken out of
the hands of the big monopolies,
and the banks and insurance
companies taken over, so that loans
can be supplied to local authorities
for building at minimum interest
rates (as was done by the Public
Works Loans Board in the 45-51
Labour Government) there can be
little real progress in housing.
If Labour were to launch a mass "Unfit for hnman habUatioa"
campaign for a socialist housing
programme, with emergency meas- To end the exploitation of people NOLS must fight in the Labour and
ures to take control out of the who want to buy their own home Student movement for:
hands of landlords, huge support Labour should:
could be won from the millions of Nationalisation of the Banks,
working people living in inadequate * Nationalise the Building Societies Finance Houses and Insurance
housing. Property being kept with compensation on the basis of companies.
empty deliberately should be proven need, so that their funds •Nationalisation of the top 200 or
taken over and used as emergency can be used to increase house so companies which control 80% of
accommodation for the homeless. building. production.
Labour councils should refuse to •Workers control and management
implement rent rises and instead Thousands of skilled building of the economy.
refuse to pay interest to the banks workers are on the dole. Labour •Compensation on the basis of
and finance houses. The govern- should ensure that their skills are proven need.
ment should immediately introduce used, and provide jobs for them • A socialist plan of production.
a rent freeze to cover all rented through a socialist housing plan.
accommodation. With the above measures,a On this basis, the misery and
To take the control of housing target of one million homes per horrors of capitalism for working
out of the hands of the landlords annum could be built. The resourc- people can be finished for all time.
and company directors Labour es exist to carry this out. An end But, the essential point is, how can
should: could be put to the misery and NOLS fight for the implementation
* Nationalise the land. squalor which hundreds of thous- of this programme and for a
* Nationalise the building industry ands of working people face every socialist housing policy?
and building supply industry, day. As the student section of the
under workers' control with comp- Labour Party, we must fight for our
ensation paid only in cases of CONCLUSIONS ideas within the NUS. Despite its
proven need. deficiencies in the field of democ-
However, it is also necessary to end However, it would be entirely racy and leadership NUS at the
the scandal of millions of pounds of wrong to advocate that the present time is the only effective
council rents and rates going to the problems of housing can be solved national student union in this
banks and finance houses. Labour " i n isolation". Education, the country. The policy of the NUS
shpuld: NHS, Transport and the social towards housing reflects a certain
services all face huge problems and amount of confusion within the
* Nationalise the banks and fin- cuts at the present time. But to leadership of the NUS. They call,
ance houses, and insurance com- make a socialist housing policy a correctly, for new student housing
panies, with compensation on the reality, the socialist transformation not to be given priority over
basis only of proven need. of the economy is essential. working class housing. They realise

10
that the interests of students and
the working class are united. At the
December 1975 conference the
NUS called for "a massive increase
in the Government building prog-
ramme", but did not support the
economic programme to make this
a reality.
At the April 1975 conference the
resolution on housing called for
liaison with "the TUC, relevant
Trade Unions and the Labour
Party to establish a common
policy." To make this a reality and
so that the NUS links with the
power of the trade union and
labour movement, NUS should
affiliate to the TUC and the Labour
Party. This would mean that issues
which unite students and the Trade
unions, both locally and nationally,
could be fought together. NOLS
must fight for this demand within
the NUS. Despite the right wing
policies of the Labour Government,
it would find tremendous support
amongst students, especially
among the working class students
in the FEs and Techs.
The record of the Labour
ments and local councils, despite
good intentions, have since been
disappointing in housing. Despite
fifteen years of Labour Government
since the war, thousands still live in
squalor! The leadership of the
Labour party have worked within
the restrictions that capitalism, the
private ownership of the means of
production,places upon them. Well
intentioned Labour Councils have
found their programmes slashed
because of the cuts in government
expenditure.
The record of the Labour
Governments and local councils
has had several tangible effects: the
return of Tory councils and the
prospect of a Tory government,
under Mrs Thatcher. Their record
under Heath on housing was one of
savage attacks on working class
living standards. Council house
rents were raised through the
Housing Finance Act. The number
of houses built, especially in the
public sector, was decimated. At
the same ti:;e, huge profits were
made from land speculation.
Students must be mobilised to fight
against the Tory threat. At the next
election, NUS should launch a
mass campaign for students to vote
Labour and work for the Labour
Party candidates.
The perspective for the coming
period are of huge battles, both
within education and society at
large. The capitalist class cannot
take society forward—their system
only offers misery and cuts in living
standards for both students and the
working class. The past two years
have seen thousands of students
moving into struggle around the
cuts, teacher unemployment and
the fee increases. It is absolutely
vital that NOLS intervenes in these
struggles, fights for socialist
solutions to the problems that
students face and win them to the
banner of the labour movement.
Half-hearted palliatives will not
satisfy the demands of these
students moving on to political
action for the first time. If NOLS
were to launch a mass campaign on
housing, with the socialist policies
and perspectives outlined in this
document, it could become a mass
organisation. In 1967/8 misled
by the student based ultra left
groups, huge opportunities were
missed to win thousands of
students to socialist ideas. If NOLS
is to develop in the future it will be
as the voice of the labour movement
in the student field with the clearly
defined ideas of Marxism. On this
basis, students could play a
valiiable role in the coming class
battles in Britain and the world in
fighting for the socialist transform-
ation of society.

JOIN T H E LABOUR PARTY

YOUNG SOCIALISTS

F I G H T FOR SOCIALIST POLICIES W H E R E I T COUNTS!

Contact: A . Bevan
Labour Party National Youth Officer
Transport House
Smith Square
London $ W I P 3JA

JOIN T H E LABOUR PARTY YOUNG SOCIALISTS

11
 Rent Strikes
INTRODUCTION
During the history of working class struggle on housing,
the tactic of a rent strike has often been an important
one. In the recent period, there have been a number of
rent strikes, in East London in the late 1960's, and in the
struggle against the Tory Housing Finance Act. The
period of the Labour Government, whilst it saw the
welcome repeal of the hated Housing Finance Act, has
also seen increases in rents, and cuts in public
expenditure on council housing. With the disastrous
situation in the British economy, the perspective is of
more cuts and rent increases in the coming period. There
is little doubt that rent strikes will once again be on the
order of the day.
The Glasgow Rent Strike of 1915 was an important
victory for the working class. It showed the strength of
the labour movement on Clydeside at that time.
However, it would be wrong to see the rent strike in
isolation. It occurred as part of a period of militancy
that included the organisation and growth of the
industrial unions before the war, and the huge battles
that occurred at the end of the first world war. Clydeside
was one of the poorest areas of Britain, and saw huge
movements of the working class during this period. This
saw the rise of the Shop Steward? movement after the
war, and the traditions of that period have been carried
on recently with the struggle against the closure of the
UCS shipyard in the early 1970's.
The tactic of rent strikes has also been used in the
student field. The past few years have seen draconian
rises in hall fees, with them often exceeding the
allowance in the grant for hall fees. Again, the cuts in
education expenditure will rnean that college authorities
will t-e aiming to increase the hall fees. The early 1970's
saw a large number of rent strikes, with a varying degree
of success. There are various 'guidelines' that can be
applied to student unions using this tactic to avoid
isolation and defeat.
The first point is that the rent strike must have the
active support of the student body to make it a success.
If only a few students are involved, it will be easier for the
college authorities to move against them. A l l the
students involved in the rent strike should pay their rent
into a fund set up for this. This avoids any possibility of
students being unable to pay, should the strike end. T h i s '
must be organised properly, with regular accounts
presented to the mass meetings of students. The
executive of the Union should obviously play a leading
role in the strike. However, it is very important to ensure
that the mass of students are involved in decision
making. A rent strike 'Committee', with elected
representatives from different halls can be useful in this,
but must not be seen as a substitute for regular mass
12
meetings.
A key point for any action organised by students is to
win the support of the trade unions on campus. Many
colleagues now have 'liason committees', with delegates
of all the campus trade unions. Any possible action
should be raised at these meetings first. It is very easy to
alienate staff support if this is not done. For colleges
that do not have these committees, a first priority must
be to contact the campus unions.
It is also very important to take the issue outside the
campus, using the rent strike as a focus to raise the
question of hall rents in the labour movement. Local
trade union branches should be contacted for support,
as should the local Trades Council, and the local Labour
Party. The LABOUR CLUB at the college can play a key
role in this, as through their links with the local Labour
Party and Labour Party Young Socialists, they should
already have contacts in the labour movement. This is
the role of a Labour Club—providing a bridge between
the student and labour movements.
A rent strike should also be linked to other activity,
and should not be allowed to 'drag on' without any
target for the students involved.lt may at a certain stage,
become entirely necessary and correct to arrange an
orderly withdrawal, if the support amongst students is
dwindling. It is entirely correct to withdraw at a certain
stage, if the support amongst the students is dwindling.
It is better to pull out with dignity, than to allow a few
individuals to carry on an action to an inevitable defeat,
when the luass of students are no longer involved.
The most important factor in holding the support of
students will always be a sense of purpose and direction
for the strike, this means organising to win support from
the local labour movement and a socialist perspective.
A LABOUR CLUB can play a vital role in a rent strike
or other action organised by the Students Union. The
Club should meet regularly to discuss how to take the
activity forward, and to fight for its ideas in the Students
Union. There is a tendency for rent strikes to be seen as
"non-political' by some students. It is the responsibility
of the Labour Club to counteract this, to explain the
political reasons why the action has been necessary, and
to fight for socialist policies, which in the final analysis
are the only policies that can solve these problems. The
Club must aim to give the mass of students a perspective
beyond the immediate struggle and win them to the
Labour Club and the labour movement on a permanent
basis. If the Labour Club issue regular material, and
make a consistent intervention on these lines, and
hammer home the point about linking these activities to
the working class movement, they will have performed a
useful role.
 The Glasgow Rent
Strike 1915
By means of the so-called "fair
Rents Bill" the Tory government
plans to double or treble the rents
of working class families. They are
out to put even bigger profits in the
hands of the landlords, moneylen-
ders, land-speculators and cons- {
truction combines. If implemented,
this Rent act will mean the biggest
rise yet in every family's living costs.
All the gains fought for by the
labour movement in the past,
particularly rent control and relat-
ively cheap council housing, will be
kicked out. And this when a
solution to our housing problem is
as far away as ever. Over 2 million
slums still exist. A t least 2 million
more lack basic amenities like
baths and indoor sanitation. M i l l -
ions of families still suffer the
misery of overcrowding and
squalor i n the b i g cities.
Meanwhile house building is a
pathetic 350,000 a year.

The Tory measures will arouse

tenants everywhere. This is only
beginning to be felt at the moment.
The labour movement has an
elementary duty to give leadership
to the fight against this attempt at
legalised robbery. In doing so we
can take a valuable lesson from the
workers and housewives of Glas-
gow, who in 1915, forced the
Government to pass the first ever
Rent Restriction Act, and
prepared the way for council
housing. The time has now come
when we must revive the fighting
spirit and organisational boldness
of 1915.
In Glasgow terrible housing
conditions had been made worse
by the First World War. The 1911
Census had already revealed that
in Scotland as a whole 45.1% of
the population lived two in a room,
21.9% three in a room, and 8.6%
four in a room [children counting
as half!] In the crowded tenements
of Glasgow conditions were far
worse .than the average.
The vast influx of war workers
for industry had enormously incr-
eased the demand for housing.
Since the private landlords had a
monopoly (there were no council
houses) they immediately tried to
exploit the situation by increasing
rents. Tenants who could not pay
were evicted and replaced by
tenants who could. For the Clyde
workers the war against the
war-profiteers and the rent collect-
ors quickly began to overshadow
the 'war against Germany'.
In February 1915, the landlords
announced a 25% increase in
rents. Many families particularly
those with men away in the army,
could not possibly afford to pay the
increase. Angry meetings were
held in all the working class areas.
"We shall not pay the increases!"
The mood was the same every-
where.
SUPPORT F R O M T H E '
LABOUR MOVEMENT
At the outbreak of the war, the
Labour and Trade Union leaders
mostly abandoned their socialist
principles and pledged support for
the imperialist war. Under the

IS

"Treasun.' Agreement" and the
"Munitions Act" the "leaders"
agreed to suspend trade union
activity during the war. But the
Clydeside workers refused to
accept a war for profits abroad as
an excuse for the increased
exploitation of the workers at
home.Under the leadership of men
like John Maclean who adopted an
internationalist stand, they fought
every attempt ti. undermine wages
and conditions. Right from the
start. Glasgow's Labour movement
gave even.- possible support to the
tenants.
There was already a Glasgow
"Labour Party Housing Committ-
ee" (including John Wheatley,
Andrew MacBride, John Maclean
and Willie Gallacher) which had
been formed in 1913 to campaign
for the right of councils to build
houses—a fight that was to bear
fruit later. The Committee now
called on the government to
control rents by law. They got no
response.
HOUSEWIVES ORGANISED
Meanwhile a "Housewives Hou-
sing Association" was set up under
the chairmanship of a Govan
housewife, Mrs Barbour. This
committee played a tremendous
role and led an unparalleled
movement of working class
women. Under the inspiration of
Maclean the committee now called
for a rent strike. Then street
meetings all over the city were used
to bring the women out and
organise them in the struggle.
The rent strike started in
September. By the beginning of
November, 25,(XX) families were
refusing to pay rent. Bold red
notices declaring: "We are not
paying increased rents" went up in
all the tenements. Empty houses
were picketed and people who had
agreed to pay increased rent were
prevented from entering. Prospect-
ive tenants sent by landlords to
houses where rent was being
withheld were firmly warned off.
All attempts at eviction were
resisted. Rent collectors trying
strong-arm methods were ejected
from the tenements and pelted
with flour and rubbish. One of the
participants later told the story of
an attempt in Parkhead to evict a
soldier's wife. The strike committee
called on the housewives to be there
on the morning the eviction notice
was to expire. Before the Sherriff's
officers arrived, the street was
packed with women with their
prams. At the same time,the
workers at the Parkhead Forge
downed tools and came to give
support. When the bailiffs arrived
they were given a rowdy reception
by an angry crowd of 5,000. They
quickly decided to forget about the
evictions and hurriedly left.
SHOP STEWARDS T A K E ACT-
ION
At this stage the factory organis-
ations inter\ened decisively. The
shop stewards convenor at Park-
head Forge (an ordnance factory)
wrote to the town clerk drawing
attention to the war-time over-
crowding: "Property owners taking
advantage . of this have been
increasing rents and the tenants
have no means of preventing this
unless by organised refusal to pay
the increase. As this might lead to
the eviction of one or more families
the men here wish to make it
perfectly clear that they would
regard this as an attack on the
working class."
"Forward" October 9, 1915). To
back this up a massive demonstrat-
ion was now held in St Enoch
Square.
By this time, the city authorities
and the government had become
14
really alarmed by the situation.
The Secretary of State for Scotland
was hurredly sent to meet the
leaders of the LP Housing Comm-
ittee. It was clearly spelt out to him
that unless the government- dealt
with the situation as requested, the
tenants would continue the strike;
and if any tenants were evicted
industrial strikes would follow.
The government then annou^iced a
Commission of Inquiry. At this the
landlords took the precaution of
announcing further widespread
increases, clearly showing their
attitude.
Things now came to a head.
Having failed in their attempts to
evict rent strikers, on November
17, one of the landlords summons-
ed 18 munitions workers for
non-payment of rent. If the court
had decided against them, the
workers wages could have been
impounded to pay arrears and
court costs. But the cases were
never heard.
The Housewives Committee org-
anised a mass march to the Court.
Shop Stewards at the Albion
Works, Harland and Wolfs, Steph-
en's Fairfield, Dalmuir Shipyard
and many other works, called for a
downing of tools and led thousands
of industrial workers to join the
housewives in the packed streets
around the Court. Terrified by
this, the Sheriff agreed to meet the
workers' representatives before the
cases were heard. They unanim-
ously threatened further action if
the cases were not withdrawn.
Faced with this determined solid-
arity the authorities were forced to
give i n . The landlord was persuad-
ed to drop his case.
This was a great victory for the
workers and housewives of Glas-
gow. But they were yet to win an
even greater victory for the workers
all over Britain.
RENT CONTROL V I C T O R Y
Outside the Court John
Maclean, who had been called out
of the school where he taught,
addressed the mass meeting from
an improvised platform supported
by six workers. He was instructed"
by the meeting to write a letter to
the Prime Minister, Asquith,
which he sent that evening: " I have
been instructed to forward to you
the following resolution passed
unanimously by about 10,000
Clyde munitions workers who
stopped on November 17 to attend
the Sheriff's Court, County Build-
ings, Glasgow, in connection with
an attempt to arrest the wages of
18 of their comrades for arrears of
rent: —
That this meeting of Clyde
munitions workers request the
government to definitely state not
later than Saturday first, that it
forbids any increase in rent during
the period of the war and that this
failing a general strike will be
declared on Monday, first, Novem-
ber 22."
It is not known whether Asquith
replied to Maclean personally. But
the government shortly afterwards
passed the Rent Restrictions Act
which tied all rents to the pre-war
level for the duration of the war and
for six months thereafter. In
addition the Clydeside agitation
was an important factor in the
( p r e d o m i n a n t l y Tory) Govern-
ment's decision to pass the 1919
Housing Act, which, despite severe
limitations, opened the way for
council housing.
T H E LESSONS O F T H E GLAS-
GOW RENT S T R I K E
It would be a great mistake to
think the Glasgow struggle of 1915
is just of "historic" interest. It has
an immediate relevance today
when we are faced with a Tory
Rent Act to increase rents by
enormous amounts. The lesson is
clear: if the labour movement gives
a lead, if the mass of tenants are
organised to withhold rent until
increases are dropped, and if the
tenants are supported step by step
by the Labour and Trade Union
organisations, the landlords, the
speculators and their Tory agents
can be defeated. This is especially
true given the great increase in the
strength of working class organis-
ations since 1915.
There is, however, a further
lesson to be drawn: a struggle
against rent increases cannot by
itself provide a solution to working
class housing problems. There can
never be a solution on a capitalist
basis, when houses are built and
let for profit not need. This is
graphically illustrated by the
example of Glasgow. Writing in
"The Times" in October 1969 [54
years after the great rent strike!].
WS Cburchill, now a Tory MP said:
"The slums of Glasgow surpass in
squalor and extent those of any
other city in Britain. Indeed, this
great city...has been described as
the biggest slum in Western
Europe...the squalor passes all
belief, even exceeding that of many
Arab refugee camps in the Middle
Sast." If these conditions were not
changed during the post war
period of economic upswing there
is no chance of their being solved
in the present period of growing
crisis for capitalism. The only way
is for the immediate fight against
rent increases to be linked to the
demand for a socialist housing
programme, such as that outlined
by the L P Y S .
By Lynn Walsh
(reprinted from an article from
Left April 1972]

JOIN THE LABOUR STUDENTS

FIGHT FOR S O a A U S T ACTION
There are Labour Clubs in every North West University and
Polytechnic. Our aim is to build Labour Clubs in every Tech
and College, If you are interested in NOLS and wish to form a
club then contact the Regional Committee immediately as we
can help you get a club off the ground in your College.
If you are interested in the activities of North West NOLS and .
require further information on the other literature we shall be
producing, the schools that we hold and the campaigns we have
planned, then contact us immediately.
CONTACT: Regional Chairman-
Malcolm Clark, Hulme Hall, Oxford Place, Victoria Park,
Manchester M14 SRR
Regional Secretary: Mick Slater, 3 Olive Mount Villas, Mill
Lane, Liverpool.