Canary Wharf rises above an area of council housing in Limehouse. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

“Poor doors” show why we need to get councils building again

We must end the virtual monopoly that private developers have on building affordable homes

The rules are clear: the poor are allowed to live close to the rich, but must use a separate entrance. They can share buildings, but are barred from mixing socially. They live together, but on every other measure they are light years apart. The scene comes straight out of Downton Abbey or a Dickens novel, reeking of inequality, anachronism and humiliation. It is, though, the stark reality of 21st Century London.

The increasing use of so-called "poor doors", as reported by the Guardian at the weekend, is disturbing – but it is just one symptom of a housing emergency that continues to afflict ordinary Londoners. It is quite clear that any system that results in this kind of discrimination is not working. Londoners should not be told that they live can in the capital’s new developments but only as second-rate citizens of their own city.

The Mayor should use the planning system to phase out the "poor door" trend – a practice that has no place in a global city that thrives on its diversity and mixed communities. But let’s not lose sight of the real cause of the problem: a deep housing crisis that dominates life in the capital. The city needs 800,000 new homes by 2021, while over 250,000 London households are already living in overcrowded conditions. A lack of supply means soaring house prices - up 25 per cent in the last year - and rapidly-rising rents are pricing ordinary Londoners out of many areas of the capital, with the result of increased segregation within the city and, now, even within buildings.

Some might ask if having a separate entrance for lower income residents in a development really matters. I believe it does matter when we think about the kind of city we want to live in. Do we want a divided city where the rich and the poor are kept separate – a city in which central London becomes a lifeless millionaire’s playground, while large parts of outer London effectively become ghettos of the poor? Or do we want a vibrant, dynamic world city in which people from all walks of life live, work and play side-by-side, thriving off each other and together contributing to a great global success story? For most Londoners the answer is clear – but it is not one that is being put into action.

Instead, in place of the old "No Irish, no blacks, no dogs" signs that greeted my father when he landed in this city in 1956, some developers are now erecting signs that, in effect, say "No cleaners, no nurses, no teachers". That is the underlying message of building designs that go to great lengths to keep everyone but the richest away from these luxury developments. Affordable homes may be included in the architect’s plans, as they legally have to be, but their eventual inhabitants are increasingly being told that they should be unseen and unheard.

The problem is not limited to London. A similar practice exists in New York, where new developments on the Upper West Side include separate entrances for different groups of residents. The Mayor, recently-elected Bill de Blasio, has rightly baulked at the idea, and made moves to ban the practice. Yet the affordable housing system in New York rests on a tax subsidy to developers who build affordable homes, whereas in the UK developers are only granted planning permission at the outset if they provide affordable housing as part of the development. This process is often heavily negotiated with local authorities and it is at this point - where politicians and planners have the leverage - that we should draw up and rigorously enforce a set of planning guidelines that emphasises shared points of entry and equal access to amenities.  

Those guidelines should be formed in conjunction with developers, housing associations and residents’ groups in order to make sure we get this right. We cannot remove developers’ financial incentive to build developments that make them money - but equally we need to make sure that we give local authorities the powers to get the best possible deal for lower income residents.

We must also end the virtual monopoly that private developers have on building affordable homes. "Poor doors" are the result of a housing system that depends almost entirely on private house-builders to deliver our affordable housing. If we could unleash local authorities from their artificial borrowing caps and empower housing associations to make better use of their assets, private developers would no longer hold all the cards when it comes to building affordable homes for Londoners.

The result of failing to get London building would not just be a deeper housing crisis but a more deeply divided city. Already we are seeing signs of this, with widespread fears that the capital is becoming a city in which the rich and the rest are increasingly segregated. To allow this to happen within individual buildings is simply adding insult to inequality. 

David Lammy is Labour MP for Tottenham

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

No, the battle in Momentum isn't about young against old

Jon Lansman and his allies' narrative doesn't add up, argues Rida Vaquas.

If you examined the recent coverage around Momentum, you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was headed towards an acrimonious split, judging by the vitriol, paranoia and lurid accusations that have appeared online in the last couple days. You’d also be forgiven for thinking that this divide was between a Trotskyist old guard who can’t countenance new ways of working, and hip youngsters who are filled with idealism and better at memes. You might then be incredibly bemused as to how the Trotskyists Momentum was keen to deny existed over the summer have suddenly come to the brink of launching a ‘takeover bid’.

However these accounts, whatever intentions or frustrations that they are driven by, largely misrepresent the dispute within Momentum and what transpired at the now infamous National Committee meeting last Saturday.

In the first instance, ‘young people’ are by no means universally on the side of e-democracy as embodied by the MxV online platform, nor did all young people at the National Committee vote for Jon Lansman’s proposal which would make this platform the essential method of deciding Momentum policy.

Being on National Committee as the representative from Red Labour, I spoke in favour of a conference with delegates from local groups, believing this is the best way to ensure local groups are at the forefront of what we do as an organisation.

I was nineteen years old then. Unfortunately speaking and voting in favour of a delegates based conference has morphed me into a Trotskyist sectarian from the 1970s, aging me by over thirty years.

Moreover I was by no means the only young person in favour of this, Josie Runswick (LGBT+ representative) and the Scottish delegates Martyn Cook and Lauren Gilmour are all under thirty and all voted for a delegates based national conference. I say this to highlight that the caricature of an intergenerational war between the old and the new is precisely that: a caricature bearing little relation to a much more nuanced reality.

Furthermore, I believe that many people who voted for a delegates-based conference would be rather astounded to find themselves described as Trotskyists. I do not deny that there are Trotskyists on National Committee, nor do I deny that Trotskyists supported a delegates-based conference – that is an open position of theirs. What I do object is a characterisation of the 32 delegates who voted for a delegates-based conference as Trotskyists, or at best, gullible fools who’ve been taken in.  Many regional delegates were mandated by the people to whom they are accountable to support a national conference based on this democratic model, following broad and free political discussion within their regions. As thrilling as it might be to fantasise about a sinister plot driven by the shadow emperors of the hard Left against all that it is sensible and moderate in Momentum, the truth is rather more mundane. Jon Lansman and his supporters failed to convince people in local groups of the merits of his e-democracy proposal, and as a result lost the vote.

I do not think that Momentum is doomed to fail on account of the particular details of our internal structures, providing that there is democracy, accountability and grassroots participation embedded into it. I do not think Momentum is doomed to fail the moment Jon Lansman, however much respect I have for him, loses a vote. I do not even think Momentum is doomed to fail if Trotskyists are involved, or even win sometimes, if they make their case openly and convince others of their ideas in the structures available.

The existential threat that Momentum faces is none of these things, it is the propagation of a toxic and polarised political culture based on cliques and personal loyalties as opposed to genuine political discussion on how we can transform labour movement and transform society. It is a political culture in which those opposed to you in the organisation are treated as alien invaders hell-bent on destroying it, even when we’ve worked together to build it up, and we worked together before the Corbyn moment even happened. It is a political culture where members drag others through the mud, using the rhetoric of the Right that’s been used to attack all of us, on social and national media and lend their tacit support to witch hunts that saw thousands of Labour members and supporters barred from voting in the summer. It is ultimately a political culture in which our trust in each other and capacity to work together on is irreparably eroded.

We have a tremendous task facing us: to fight for a socialist alternative in a global context where far right populism is rapidly accruing victories; to fight for the Labour Party to win governmental power; to fight for a world in which working class people have the power to collectively change their lives and change the societies we live in. In short: there is an urgent need to get our act together. This will not be accomplished by sniping about ‘saboteurs’ but by debating the kind of politics we want clearly and openly, and then coming together to campaign from a grassroots level upwards.

Rida Vaquas is Red Labour Representative on Momentum National Committee.