During New Labour’s first term the talk was of “the third way”, an exciting compromise between central government control and rampant free market economics. It has all now been quietly forgotten. Over the past three years, all references to this laudable but ultimately unachievable philosophy have been dropped.

Now, the government seems to be on the verge of a similar rethink of its options for reaching the decent homes standard. The official ODPM line has long been that there will be no “fourth way” addition to PFI, stock transfer and arm’s-length management. However, delegates at the Labour party conference had different ideas and rejected this intransigence in a vote on Sunday night. John Prescott, undoubtedly emabarrassed by this view from the floor, swiftly ordered that the three options be reviewed.

Far from concluding that this is policy “on the hoof”, we should be applauding this belated show of flexibility. But it is a bit late – in the months after the people of Camden rejected the north London council’s plans for an arm’s-length management organisation, complaint from the sector over the limited choice it was given has grown from a grumble to something approaching a clamour. Should council properties in Camden not be renovated because the residents voted against the ALMO? Of course not, was the resounding answer, and bodies including the Local Government Association and Local Government Information Unit have spoken out in favour of a review into what can be done in these circumstances.

Also, we should not conclude that the announcement of a review automatically means the appearance of some nebulous “fourth way”. The government remains unable to provide details of the review’s scope or timescale, or identities of the reviewers. The idea in its current form is not the most exhaustively analysed proposal of Labour’s second term.

We should not conclude that the review will mean the appearance of some nebulous ‘fourth way’

In the absence of any detail, it is impossible to say whether this review is (as some suspect) a sop to those who oppose movement away from local authority control over housing. Let’s hope that now the commitment has been made a comprehensive and objective examination will follow.

Maybe it will conclude there is no financially viable “fourth way” and the idea will suffer the same fate as its ordinal predecessor? A review might not mean a change of policy, but it does at least suggest that the government has realised that this piece of dogma might not be as practical as it first sounded.

Source

Housing Today