‘The party’s over’: critical junctures, crises and the politics of housing policy

Abstract

The key argument set out in this article is that historical and comparative forms of investigation are necessary if we are to better understand the ambitions and scope of contemporary housing interventions. To demonstrate the veracity of our claim, we have set out an analysis of the UK housing polices enacted in the mid-1970s as a basis for comparison with those pursued 40 years later. The article begins with a critical summary of some of the methodological approaches adopted by researchers used to interpret housing policy. In the main section, we present our critical analysis of housing policy reforms (implemented by the Labour government between 1974 and 1979) noting both their achievements and limitations. In the concluding section, we use our interpretation of this period as a basis to judge contemporary housing policy and reflect on the methodological issues that arise from our analysis.

Key words:

• Housing policy
• historical methods
• 1970s

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our gratitude to Dennis Grube, John Flint and the three anonymous referees for their comments on an earlier version of the paper along with Professor Christine Whitehead who shared with us her recollection of working under Anthony Crosland in the Department of the Environment. Finally, our thanks to Gemma Read of the LSE library for facilitating access to Anthony Crosland’s collection of papers.

Notes

1 As we make clear later on in the article, most of the significant housing legislation was enacted in the first few years of their period in office.

2 The reforms undertaken by the Conservative administration elected in 1979 have been subject to considerable interest (see Forrest & Murie, 1988; Lowe, 2004; Malpass, 2005; Malpass & Victory, 2011). In contrast, the mid-1970s have been paid less attention in recent housing scholarship.

3 The designation of Housing Action Areas was largely determined by the extent of disrepair in the private rental sector.

4 In attending to Crosland’s contribution we are mindful that we could be criticised for attributing too much significance to his role and also perhaps for over emphasising the capacity of politicians to exert influence. Whilst not wishing to exaggerate the importance of agency vis à vis other factors: we do adhere to the notion, that in some periods, events and circumstances can coalesce in ways that offer politicians opportunities to effect major change. The mid-1970s was one such period.

5 See Malpass (2011) for a discussion of the concept of path dependency and housing policy.

6 Heath lost power in February 1974 despite having a larger share of the vote than the Labour party. Wilson returned to office though 17 seats short of an overall majority. In a second election in October 1974, Wilson secured a small overall majority of three seats.

7 Peter Rachman was a private landlord based in west London. In the late 1960s, he became infamous for his harassment of sitting tenants to gain vacant possession.

8 Harold Wilson resigned as Prime Minister in April 1976 and was succeeded by the Foreign Secretary James Callaghan.

9 This noted, Shore was responsible for the 1977 Government White Paper ‘Policies for the Inner Cities’ (DoE, 1977a) which identified the structural causes of poverty and the need for public sector intervention to address its effects.

10 See Lazzarato’s (2011) argument that contemporary neoliberal governmental practice relies on a logic of debt resulting in a transformation of social rights, with beneficiaries of welfare turned into debtors. This form of ‘patrimonial individualism’ (p. 104) has enabled a moralisation of the unemployed as debt has become a universal power relation.