Statement from Aylesbury Estate Occupation

February 2, 2015 news From “Fight for the Aylesbury” occupation website. Since the “March for Homes” demo on 31st January, we have re-opened and occupied a part of the Aylesbury Estate in Southwark, South London. We are tenants, squatters, and other people who care about how our city is being grabbed by the rich, by developers and corrupt politicians, socially cleansed and sold off for profit. The Aylesbury Estate is where Tony Blair made his first speech as Prime Minister in 1997, making empty promises about social housing. Since then, for the past 18 years, Southwark Council and their developer friends have come up with one scheme after another. All with the same aim: to dispossess the residents, demolish their homes, and sell the land. In 2002 Aylesbury tenants fought and won a campaign against demolition and voted down the original scheme in a ballot. But now big areas of the estate are emptied and sealed up awaiting the bulldozers, while residents are “decanted” away from the area. The same bullshit that we have seen on the nearby Heygate estate, and all across London. No demolition of the Aylesbury. No yuppy flats. Homes for all. We are here to fight for the Aylesbury. We are here to fight for our city. We are here to liberate this space and bring it back to life. Come and join us. PS: Thank you to everyone who has come down to show support, to all our neighbours and to those who have even come from as far away as Hackney bringing tea!

East Herts. District Council fails to meet social housing target

I live in a town called Ware in East Hertfordshire. A small town with around25 thousand habitants. But there is a growing waiting list for affordable homes and social housing in particular I am just part of a number chasing fewer and fewer homes. I am registered blind having lost my sight 10 years ago I’d love my own place affordable convenient and suitable for my needs. But currently I’m stuck on a dead end waiting list with little to no chance of getting anything from the council never mind privately renting or buying which is both totally out of the question with my low paid job and not huge money behind me. I am passionate about campaigning for new housing. I feel there is a big need for greater numbers of housing and not just for the rich but also for those who are seeing their wages shrink and their savings go no where. I work part time and still live at home with my mum and brother which is ok but not how I want to live for the rest of my life. So I was intrigued to read an article in our local paper online today. In the Hertfordshire Mercury currently the only source of local news online anyhow to local residents of Ware and Hertford ran with the story about social housing today. I will republish below you can read more about this article and further excellent local pieces at: http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Councillor-calls-affordable-homes-East-Herts/story-22864696-detail/story.html “A call has been made for East Herts Council to provide more social housing to tackle the “extensive” waiting list of people in need. Councillor John Wing asked the executive to take further action at its meeting in Wallfields, Hertford, tonight (September 2). He said: “We have an extensive waiting list for social housing in the district. “I would like to see some work being done to identify ways in which we might be able to promote the building of additional social housing in the district to go some way towards addressing the sizeable waiting list we’ve got.” The meeting had earlier heard that the council had failed to deliver its target of 200 affordable homes in the district in the 2013-14 year, with just 76 being built. This was attributed to delays in the construction of private homes, which are sometimes agreed on condition that affordable homes are included as part of the development. It was also noted that there had been delays in building on sites proposed by housing associations to accommodate affordable homes. It was anticipated that those projects with planning permission would be completed in 2014-15. Councillor Mike Carver, the executive member for strategic planning and transport, said developers were usually required to supply up to 40 per cent of social housing with private homes. He said: “The key is ensuring we get in the development the right proportionality for the district. “In the previous government we had a significant push for single dwellings for single persons. “That’s created an excess of stock in certain areas and minimisation in others. “That, we are addressing through the local plan.” Councillor Linda Haysey, the executive member for health, housing and community support, pointed out that council land had been sold to housing associations to build on for just £1. She said: “It’s the cost of the land which makes building so very expensive in this area.””

The gentrification of our towns and cities

Yesterday on the ever excellent Novara FM Aaron and James discussed gentrification and how it is changing the face of the Britain we know. You can listen back to yesterdays show on Novara at http://novaramedia.com/2013/10/regeneration-gentrification-and-social-cleansing/ The definition from Wikipedia on gentrification is as follows “Gentrification is a shift in an urban community toward wealthier residents and/or businesses and increasing property values, sometimes at the expense of the poorer residents of the community.[1] Gentrification is typically the result of investment in a community by local government, community activists, or business groups, and can often spur economic development, attract business, deter crime, and have other benefits to a community. However, despite these potential benefits, urban gentrification often, intentionally or unintentionally, is generally believed to result in population migration as poor residents of a neighborhood are displaced by wealthier newcomers, though studies have shown this not necessarily to be the case.[2] In a community undergoing gentrification, the average income increases and average family size decreases. Poorer, pre-gentrification residents, who are unable to pay increased rents, and property taxes, or afford real estate, may be driven out. Often old industrial buildings are converted to residences and shops. New businesses, which can afford increased commercial rent, cater to a more affluent base of consumers—further increasing the appeal to higher income migrants and decreasing the accessibility to the poor. Often, resident owners unable to pay the taxes are forced to sell their residences and move to a cheaper community.[3][4] Political action, either to promote or oppose the gentrification, is often the community's response against unintended economic eviction.[5] However, local governments may favor gentrification because of the increased tax base associated with the new high-income residents, as well as other perceived benefits of moving poor people and rehabilitating deteriorated areas.[citation needed]” A fantastic piece carried out by The New economics Foundation who are a little hit and miss me find but often come up with some cracking investigations and works have unearthed some startling statistics in Islington and how this is going to affect people long term. “Poverty is deepening and inequality is widening in Islington. After five years of economic uncertainty, public sector cuts, and now welfare reform, lower-income residents are under more pressure than ever. The gap between the wealthiest and the rest is growing as house prices and wage polarisation squeeze middle-income families. By 2020, Islington will be a starkly polarised and unequal borough. Despite these challenges this report shows that local actors can make a difference in the face of change. It identifies key areas in which action can make a positive difference to the lives of Islington residents, now and in the long run. This report is about poverty and inequality in Islington. Through interviews with low and high earners in the borough, as well as statistical analysis of key trends, Distant neighbours explores: • how life has changed for Islington’s lower-income residents during a period of economic uncertainty, public sector cuts, and welfare reform. • what inequality looks like in Islington, how people experience it, and what the consequences are for all of us. • how current trends will continue into the future and what Islington might look like in 2020. • what can be done locally to address poverty and inequality. In contrast to its image of boutique shops, top-end restaurants, and a thriving night life, Islington has long been a borough of entrenched poverty and wide inequalities. In 2008, Cripplegate Foundation’s report Invisible Islington painted a rich picture of the lives of the borough’s lower-income residents. It showed how people were struggling with worklessness, debt, social isolation, and poor physical and mental health. Our research suggests that over the last five years poverty has deepened and inequality has widened. • Poverty is intensifying in Islington. There have always been lower-income residents living in Islington, struggling with poverty. Today, life is much harder due to five years of economic uncertainty, public sector cuts, and now welfare reform. People on low incomes feel insecure. They feel they have no control over their lives. They fear destitution. Social isolation and mental ill health are worsening. Child poverty is particularly high, and likely to grow. Finding work is not always the answer to poverty in Islington. Our research shows that the London Living Wage (LLW) is not enough for the majority of household types in Islington. • Middle-income families have been squeezed out of Islington. Islington is fast becoming a place where middle-income families can no longer afford to live. The middle market in homes is disappearing as house prices soar. Wages are also stagnating, especially for middle- and lower-income earners. This means that middle-income families have been squeezed out of the borough and only certain groups on middle incomes – single people and couples without children living in flat shares – will be able to stay. • By 2020, only the wealthiest will be able to afford to live in Islington. We predict that by 2020 a family will need to earn more than £90,000 a year to afford market rents in Islington. House buying will be out of reach for almost all but the very top earners. This will leave Islington polarised, with very wealthy families at the top, a youthful, transient and childless sector in the middle, and those on low incomes at the bottom, living in social housing. The social consequences of living in an economically polarised borough which are revealed by the research – residents leading separate lives, lack of understanding between groups, and social alienation – are likely to grow. The issues raised in this report are both wide ranging and complex. However, action to address poverty and inequality in Islington is possible. Cripplegate Foundation, keen to learn about residents’ experiences of poverty and inequality and thus inform its future work, commissioned this report. Based on our findings we identify three broad areas for action. These range from opportunities for immediate local action, to longer-term preventative measures, to advocating for wider change beyond the borough. • Make a difference today. The most direct and immediate way in which organisations such as Cripplegate Foundation can address the issues raised in this report is through local action. Building on the success of the initiatives developed after Invisible Islington, Cripplegate Foundation could make a difference today by investing in mental health and well-being initiatives, supporting initiatives to reduce social isolation the borough, enabling lower income families to access alternative forms of credit, and supporting young people to develop their capabilities. • Invest upstream to prevent poverty and inequality. Cripplegate Foundation could play a role in ensuring that valuable preventative work continues in Islington. This could best be achieved by partnering more closely with universal service providers, such as General Practitioners (GPs) and Registered Social Landlords (RSLs), and by working more collaboratively with local residents. • Advocate for change beyond Islington. Cripplegate Foundation can use its position as a respected local foundation to advocate for change within and beyond the borough. This could be approached on an issue-by-issue basis, including: affordable and decent quality housing; secure and well-paid jobs and apprenticeships; and access to credit, building on the successful work of the Islington Debt Coalition.” http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/distant-neighbours Clearly I am going to agree with James and Aaron from Novara FM who suggest communism being the route out of this mess but in the right here and now we need resistance to all this. Big parts of London for example are coming no go zones for the working class. A lot of people are moving south from the north in London and further east too the old docklands areas are now full of high rise posh flats and offices where before it was good solid working class communities. We can see the changing face of London under our very eyes we must organise to stop this happening in any way we can. There are a lot of difficulties in organising any sort of resistance to this but to spread solidarity and draw people into the struggles must be a start for me. The answer oh just build more homes isn’t necessarily helpful here as there is good housing all be it in need of upgrading here but poorer communities are not being allowed to stay and are having to be forced out. A culture of resistance in communities is clearly needed to combat this kind of attack. This is not going to go away and whilst capitalism is here and the transient inter capitalist class who are always on the move exist we will always have this issue.

Standing in solidarity with those affected by the bedroom tax

I have a confession. I am not directly affected by the bedroom tax which will from this month affect those in social housing and housing association housing who have a spare room. But I do stand in full solidarity and will defend anyone affected by this wicked and spiteful attack on the poorest in society. It’s not enough to oppose this in words this most likely will take the form of direct action to stop and eventually scrap all together. We need the spirit of the poll tax to make this tax simply unworkable. From April the 'bedroom tax' will mean that social housing tenants with spare rooms will have their benefits cut. This will hit 660,000 households including many disabled people and low-paid workers. Tenants are faced with an impossible choice of moving from their family homes or being left with a much smaller income. Many will simply be unable to find smaller homes in the social sector because they don't exist. For example, in Newcastle 6,637 families are hit but there are only 50 one-bed homes available. Some will be forced to move to privately rented flats which, because they are more expensive, will actually mean they need more in benefits. There has been a wave of opposition from working class communities. On Merseyside 'One Vision Housing' provoked protests by trying to force tenants to sign a disclaimer accepting that they would face legal action if they didn't pay rent as a result of the bedroom tax. The resistance has already had an effect with the government saying it will introduce exceptions for families with severely disabled children and adult children in the armed forces as well as counting foster children in room allowances. Unworkable Some councils and landlords have seen how unworkable the tax is and have made concessions and come out publicly against the tax. Faced with a growing protest movement, Dundee council has passed a motion agreeing not to evict as a result of arrears caused by the tax for a "transitional period of one year." The policy has been justified as a means to use the social housing stock more efficiently - given the shortage, why should people have a 'spare' room? But the shortage is a result of government policy. This government came into office claiming it was committed to "get Britain building". In fact, house-building figures released in February show an 11% decrease in the number of new homes started in the last year, down to just 98,280. In 2010, the government cut spending on social housing and promised that de-regulation and freeing up the market would increase house building: it didn't! Even the CBI, the 'bosses union', has called on the government to spend £1.25 billion on building 50,000 new homes. Writing in the Guardian, Zoe Williams recently highlighted the fact that as government support for building social housing has fallen the benefit bill has increased, and house building has collapsed. As she put it: "Let's build more homes - who wouldn't vote for that?" Build TUSC But it is hard to vote for it when none of the major parties stand for it. Some Labour politicians have spoken out against the hardship caused by the bedroom tax but they accept the idea of both a bedroom tax and a benefit cap - they just say they oppose this one. That is the importance of building the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition as an alternative, arguing for homes not profit. Nationalising the banks and using them to support a programme of house building would put building workers back in work and offer a real prospect of solving the housing crisis.

private rents in 55% of local authorities unaffordable, demand decent affordable housing now

Just 12% of areas in England have affordable rents, research by housing charity Shelter found
Private rents are now unaffordable in 55% of local authorities in England, the housing charity Shelter has said.

Homes in these areas cost more than 35% of median average local take-home pay - the level considered unaffordable by Shelter's Private Rent Watch report.

The charity said 38% of families with children who rent privately have cut back on buying food to help pay rent.

Shelter's research found rents had risen at one-and-a-half times the rate of incomes in the 10 years up to 2007.

'Dramatic impact'

It said private rents in 8% of England's local authorities were "extremely unaffordable" - with average rents costing at least half of full-time take-home pay.

Just 12% of areas were affordable, it added.

Shelter analysed two-bedroom homes because they were so widely found and used Valuation Office Agency and Office for National Statistics data.



Average monthly rent for two-bedroom home in London is £1,360 - almost two-and-a-half times more than the rest of England
Kensington and Chelsea is the highest at £2,714 a month
Burnley in Lancashire the lowest at £394 a month
Oxford is the least affordable area outside London
Blackpool is the least affordable in north of England
Source: Shelter



It is high time we started to demand decent affordable housing for all. Not just a few or just for those who are in work like Ed Miliband likes to put forward. There is no reason why everyone shouldnt have a right to a decent affordable home for themselves. The fact that successive governments have turned a blind eye to this housing crisis is to their eternal shame. Even a labour government did not build nearly enough affordable homes in their time in government. With Ed Miliband coming out at his conference in support of Margret Thatchers right to buy scheme it shows where his and his parties priorities lay. Not with the working class.



We say :
§ Build a million affordable new homes to ease the housing crisis immediately.
§ Nationalise the construction industry, banks and financial institutions, under democratic workers' control and management.


then look to build more homes as the need is wanted. This will not only provide new decent affordable homes for ordinary people but will provide jobs in the construction industry which has seen its work hit as a lack of building projects as a result of the cuts. This could be just one way of getthing things moving again. Of course as socialists we'd want to go further but this would be a key first step and would make a big difference to many ordinary working class people today.

Why i feel evicting families of rioters would be a wrong route to take

As a number of Councils and Housing Associations in London, Manchester, Salford and Birmingham say that they intend to evict tenants involved in rioting (and Grant Shapps has jumped in to back them, as has David Cameron),


I firmly believe still that social housing should be a right not a privillage as David Davies argued last night on question time. We have a duty to house our residents and prevent homelessness. Evicting a whole family due to one person in that particular family chooseing to voice their anger and frustration by rioting is punishing the whole lot.

I do feel the right has been far too quick to jump into many reactionary views be that removing rioters benifits or putting teh army on the streets to rubber bullets. Peopl are angry rightly so no one appreciates having their house or local shops smashed up. But by jumping into tackling theis issue by just considering it a mindless criminal act on a mass scale kind of avoids the point to me. Allowing police to go out and shoot rioters is bringing us right back to why these riots originally started. A suspected police shooting on a innocent man in Tottenham. Failing to tackle the root cause of these riots which i put firmly at the door of deep inequality in our society is failing to learn from the mistakes of history.

I do feel that these riots will happen again if nothing is done to help communities and youth's who feel disenfranchised by society and have no hope or future.

Although not excusing the rioters or condoning this i do feel we'd be missing a big point if we dont look at the root causes and why people choose to riot in the first place.

But back to the point of evicting rioters families would have big legal consequences and could even trigger a bigger backlash as the poor are demonised even further and driven into ghetto's in affect.


The relevant grounds for an eviction would be Ground 2 of Schedule 2 of Housing Act 1985 (for secure, Council tenants) or Ground 14 Schedule 2 Housing Act 1988 (for assured, housing association tenants). These are pretty much identical, both read:

The tenant or a person residing in or visiting the dwelling-house—

(a)has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to a person residing, visiting or otherwise engaging in a lawful activity in the locality, or

(b)has been convicted of—

(i)using the dwelling-house or allowing it to be used for immoral or illegal purposes, or

(ii)an indictable offence committed in, or in the locality of, the dwelling-house.

Both are discretionary grounds, which mean that the Court must also be satisfied that it is reasonable in the circumstances to make a possession order and that the court has a further discretion to impose a postponed or suspended possession order with conditions.

There can be little doubt that rioting and/or looting would be likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance. There are likely to be large numbers of convictions for indictable offences as well. However, the nuisance or the offence must be in ‘the locality’ of the tenanted property. ‘Locality’ is not defined in either Act or elsewhere. I would anticipate that there may well be some difficult cases on what constitutes a locality to come, where the offence/nuisance is not within the immediate neighbourhood of the property. But certainly an offence committed in another borough is highly unlikely to count.

We should note in passing that Grant Shapps, a housing minister whose knee is never knowingly un-jerked, has today suggested that the ‘locality’ condition should be scrapped so that those found guilty of ‘being involved in rioting’ in another area could be evicted. The trouble with that is it would simply mean being convicted of an arrestable offence, even if wholly unrelated to the home or to housing, would be a ground for eviction. That may just be a step too far for all kinds of reasons, not least Article 8. Mr Shapps also points to his desire to introduce a mandatory ground for possession for those convicted of ASB – but this wouldn’t apply to offences committed outside the locality as they would not be ‘housing related’.

If the rioter was in the locality but is not the tenant, e.g. a member of the household, or even a visitor, the tenant would still potentially be caught by these grounds. This would be the case even if the tenant had no involvement at all, or didn’t even know that the other person did. So parents, partners etc. could well face eviction proceedings. While the court can consider the circumstances of non-offending occupiers and the relationship between the offence and the landlord-tenant relationship, the court must also consider the seriousness of the offence and its effect on others, and the likelihood of further offences.

Anyone wondering about a proportionality issue under Article 8 should note that these are discretionary grounds (at least to date!) and that the Court’s consideration of whether it is reasonable to make an order has been previous considered to be in effect an application of the principle of proportionality (E.g. Lord Brown in Kay v Lambeth).

Of course if the rioter (or tenant of rioters household) is on an introductory or demoted tenancy, things are quite different. There isn’t time to go through the whole process, but there, on an otherwise mandatory possession order, proportionality defences would come into play.


So i do think we should be very careful in moving into these areas of removing benifits and housing as these people some of them have very little and taking what they do have will only force them more into crimes.

Why i feel we should be building more social housing in the UK

As we all know here in the south east of the United kingdom london and the surrounding areas there is huge housing problems with people finding themselves priced out of the housing market more and more.

Ever since Margret Tatcher allowed people back in the late 80's to start to buy their own councial houses's off the council and actually own them there has never really been a big attempt to refill that gap with more social housing.

With our population rising year on year and a aging population too i think we are going to be pushing our infrustructure to the limit before long.

Under Labour which was meant to be a forward thinking progressive government they failed to address this major issue creating tension in communities. With the levels of homelessness rising sharply too with the cuts to housing benifits this will becomg a greater issue in years to come. Labour had the chance during boom years to invest some of its surplus public money in building new homes - affordable homes for young families just starting out in life with a child or two. We are hearing now more and more young people are deciding to stay at home with their parents for longer now as they simply cannot afford to move out and get their own place.

I feel this is atravesty and we should be actively encouraging young people to get out of the family home and start a life for them. Whilst saying this i feel a lot of young people are being restrained and cant make ends meet to afford a basic rent in london and the south east a lot of the time.

For me when i came to look for a place of my own which i'm still not really progressing on it was an option between council housing list which i was told has a 10 year waiting list in our area or private which rents around Hertfordshire and London are ridiculously expensive. Apart from that there is no other route really. If i was to share a place with friends that might help but this is only really possible when you have a lot of friends say 4 or 5 to help share the rent to make it manageable.

I feel the lack of socail affordable housing has put added pressure on communities and ugly things like racial tensions become more apparent in certain communities also with a lack of aspiration can really affect a area especailly if it also has high unemployment.
Luckily i live in a good area with low unemployment but this is not the case all over the country or all over the south east for example.

Not only could building more houses, affordable ones at that for people to live in it would also provide construction and building firms jobs and work to be doing in these tough years we are currently in now. Overall helping the econemy.

Just a thought really ...