So Defend Council Housing wants Camden to be to arm's-length management what Birmingham was to stock transfer. In other words, for Camden council tenants to overwhelmingly reject the idea in the November ballot and blow the policy off course.
But would a Camden no vote be as important as Birmingham's? It would be a disappointment, but the impact would not ricochet round the sector with the same force. Unlike stock transfer, councils are not obliged to ballot their tenants, although a number have. A no vote means councils might simply opt for different means of consultation.

Also, ALMOs do not provoke as much opposition as the housing is still owned by the council. DCH is opposed to ALMOs because they amount to "privatisation by the back door". With this, it argues, comes higher rents – but in fact, the government is acting to level rents across the sector.

It also argues that Camden tenants get a three-star service anyway. So why is there the need to change? The answer, of course, is to get the £238m investment, which is desperately needed and will not come Camden's way if tenants reject the ALMO.

DCH is right to ask what the future for ALMOs might be. They are not alone in wondering whether their scope will be limited to managing their own council stock – and why Camden can't get government money direct if it's performing so well. But more freedom is not necessarily a bad thing,

as even DCH must recognise. If ALMOs get their hands on development grant, as is possible, then effectively councils will be building stock again.

Tenants need to know that they are voting on political ideology and not rent increases

Tenants of course will decide for themselves whether ALMO is right for them. But they need to know that they are voting on political ideology and not rent increases.

Beggar beliefs
Should people be allowed to take action that may seriously harm or even kill them, or should the state stop them? The government has repeatedly shown its willingness to step in, be it force-feeding anorexic teenagers or obliging Jehovah's Witnesses to accept life-saving blood transfusions. Now this approach has come to begging.

The antisocial behaviour white paper will allow judges to force drug-addicted beggars to accept treatment or else go to prison. Civil injunctions are already being used to jail repeat offenders (page 11) – an approach that has been greeted with horror by civil rights groups and some charities.

Source

Housing Today