The secret documents that reveal Tory plans for social cleansing of the poor in West London

July 11, 2009 11:38 am

Hammersmith FulhamBy Andy Slaughter MP

Hammersmith & Fulham Council has recently announced plans to demolish 3,500 homes on estates they have declared “not decent neighbourhoods”. The full story in Evening Standard’s article “Plot to rid council estates of poor“.

Why?

Secret documents I have just recovered through an FoI request reveal that the Conservative Leader of Hammersmith & Fulham Council, Stephen Greenhalgh, told senior Conservative Party officials that council estates are “ghettoes”. The people who live there “add to the welfare cost of Government” and “have fallen into a cycle of unemployment and dependency”. “We (the taxpayer)” get “no return”. “What is needed” is “a solution to concentrations of deprivation”.

As part of the process exposed by the documents, the Council gathered together a secret group of people to discuss this. Someone asked: “What is a ‘Poor person’?” Someone else said Fulham Court “is not a place, it is a barrack for the poor”. Yet another suggested the 2,000 strong White City estate was “an ideal place to develop and deliver a ‘master plan’”. And someone else said it was “hard to get rid of people”.

Participants acknowledged “‘Porteresque’ accusations of gerrymandering or social engineering needed to be faced head on”. Hence: “funding needed for political problem of management”, and “regeneration should not be stymied by a very few who object on spurious or ideological grounds”.

The “message” is “ownership empowers”, and “the Sacred Cows need to be shot!”. “We need to create mixed communities in concentrated areas of deprivation.”

Now, the Council has developed its “bulldozer argument” for its planning strategy – branding seven council estates containing 3,500 homes “not decent neighbourhoods”.

Using the language of social cleansing, and with no respect for age, vulnerability or human rights, the Tories propose to destroy communities on estates in Shepherds Bush, Hammersmith and Fulham. The sites will be used mainly for commercial development like hotels and conference centres. There would be a reduction of social rented homes by up to a third, and new housing for sale would be unaffordable to local residents.

In the meantime, all but health and safety repairs to the properties would cease and flats would be let on a temporary basis. Whole neighbourhoods are now blighted, with freeholders and leaseholders unable to sell, even though demolition could be years away. For the remaining social tenants in the borough – almost 40% of the population – there would be no prospect of re-housing for 20 years as the displaced residents took the few homes that become available.

But the targeted estates are places that all types of people wish to live – from pensioners and young families to first-time buyers and professionals. Many millions of pounds of public money have been spent on them under the Decent Homes programme. There is no need to destroy these communities. Residents are naturally furious at the proposals and don’t want to be forced into smaller homes at higher rents.

This is social engineering on a grand scale, and it is being recommended to the Conservative Party hierarchy as the way forward in housing: no security, high rents, no duty to house the homeless, not even right to buy.

The secret Council documents I have obtained suggest the Council’s policy to destroy communities they brand “not decent” may be unlawful, as well as immoral. Council officers are writing Tory party policy using council taxpayers money. But, far worse, poor and vulnerable people in my constituency are being used as guinea pigs in a dishonest and destructive socio-political experiment.

Read more on Dave Hill’s blog.

Related posts:

  1. Tory ‘aid vouchers’ would not benefit the poor
  2. Tory twists and turns on knocking down housing
  3. The West End not Westminster
  4. Blair knew of a secret policy which led to torture
  5. A poor prescription from Clegg

Comments are closed

Latest

  • Comment Why I went from Blue to Red

    Why I went from Blue to Red

    Saturday May 15th 2010 is a day which will stay in my mind for some time. It is the day I joined the Labour Party. You might not think there is anything special in that, but for the previous 6 years I had been a member of the Conservatives. I should have joined Labour much sooner, growing up in a working class household and benefiting as I did from so many of their policies: EMA enabled me to go to [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour needs a prawn cocktail offensive for all businesses, not just small firms

    Labour needs a prawn cocktail offensive for all businesses, not just small firms

    Both Jacqui Smith and Dermot Finch have written in recent days about the need for Labour to embark on a new “prawn cocktail offensive” to charm the business community. I agree with Jacqui and Dermot and I’m optimistic about the reception Labour is likely to receive from the business community, provided we have the courage to engage with all businesses – small firms, mid-caps and large corporates. This doesn’t mean deviating from the responsible capitalism agenda. If business wants more [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Local Government Why we’re raising council tax

    Why we’re raising council tax

    Nobody wants to pay more tax and I am not a high tax and spend politician, so my administration’s proposed rejection of the government’s council tax funding has not been based on ideological dogma, but a reasoned decision based on financial prudence. I led my group to win control of City of York Council in May 2011. We inherited from the previous Liberal Democrat administration a budget with £21m of in year cuts to make, a number of previously unexposed [...]

    Read more →
  • Local Government News Boris and the 2 billion pound “clerical error”

    Boris and the 2 billion pound “clerical error”

    Earlier today on BBC’s London Politics Show, it was revealed that billions of pounds were inaccurately added to Boris Johnson’s official budget document – a mistake that a spokesperson for the Tory Mayor attempted to dismiss as a “clerical error”. At over £2 billion – that’s some clerical error… A spokesperson for Ken Livingstone said: “Boris Johnson claims anyone arguing for lower fares for Londoners doesn’t understand the transport finances, but now it turns out it’s Boris Johnson’s transport figures [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The sad truth behind Andrew Lansley’s eyes

    The sad truth behind Andrew Lansley’s eyes

    “Michael,” said the Prime Minister, without looking up from his desk, “I thought you said this would be easy?” “Easy? That what would be easy?” replied the Education Secretary, whose face had occupied a near-permanent state of mild bafflement, which was slowly becoming the kind of ever-present British institution that decades from now will be ruined by ill-thought out reforms, or having a roof built over it in case it rains. “This NHS business. You said it would be easy.” [...]

    Read more →