The Routine Daily News: February 2016

+  

     

"Orwell and the Coles were still writing at a time before council housing had come to occupy quite such a dominant role in the lives of the poor. And they therefore could not foresee some of its profoundest effects, many of which were embodied in the 'housing list.' Naturally the only fair way to allocate these precious new dwellings with all their modern conveniences was to set up a queuing system, to be calibrated according to need by a system of points—so many for being disabled, or elderly, or with dependent children. But such a list had two further effects: that it encouraged the queuers to show their wounds and to think of themselves as victims with entitlements rather than as agents with challenges; and it also meant that once having climbed to the top of the list and been allocated a house or flat, people didn't want to go through the whole business again (most councils were in any case slow to set up a transfer system) and felt inhibited from moving even to another part of the same town, thus becoming permanently dependent on the local authority. Sterner critics in the 70s and 80s came to argue that teenage girls deliberately became pregnant in order to qualify for a council flat, once the stigma of bearing a child out of wedlock had faded. I remain unpersuaded that this was the sole or even prime reason in most cases; a deeper longing to give some meaning to one's life often seemed to be involved. But at the very least, in those many parts of towns and cities where council housing became for a generation the dominant form of tenure, there was inevitably a growing need to cultivate the goodwill of the town hall. Council tenants occupied their dwellings at the pleasure of the housing officers. In what sense was and is their position much different from the unfree lower orders under feudalism—the serfs and villeins—or from the tenantry of a great Whig landowner in their tied cottages?" Ferdinand Mount