Letters

And the decision to use at least 47 homes for a "key-worker scheme" – with projected rent increases of £50 per week – is bad for people waiting for housing in Hackney, bad for Canalside tenants waiting for transfers, and bad for key workers. Renting a one-bed flat for £500 per month does not address key-workers' need for affordable housing.

The two housing association parents of Canalside – Metropolitan Housing Trust and Community Housing Association – should deliver on their pre-transfer promises.

We are calling on tenants to support the campaign by Haggerston, Kingsland and Whitmore Tenants and Residents Association (HAWK-TRA) against these plans, and are writing to the Housing Corporation and Hackney council to ask them to use their powers to halt these proposals.
Sheila Seabury and Nick Strauss, Canalside Community Board, London E8

Two sides to the storey
Liverpool council leader Mike Storey shows selective amnesia when he states that the Militant-led Liverpool Labour council did not build many houses or tackle unemployment (22 August, page 24).

Let's not forget that none of the other 47 Labour councillors took the path of Derek Hatton after the Liverpool events.

Under Labour's urban regeneration strategy 5000 council homes were built, most with gardens front and back. Higher-rise housing was improved.

The Liverpool Post of 12 September 1985 said: "The city's 3800 new homes, all with front and back gardens, earn praise from Alice Coleman [a recognized housing expert]. 'Liverpool,' she told council chiefs and local builders, 'has got it right.'" Ms Coleman then went on to write a book, Utopia on Trial, praising the council's strategy. Councillor Storey might do well to read it.

As for jobs, Liverpool was particularly hard-hit by the recession of that time. The council actually ameliorated this by providing more than 10,000 jobs.

The preceding Liberal-Conservative coalition proposed cuts and redundancies to stay within prime minister Margaret Thatcher's spending limits.

You have only to look at the words of Richard Kemp – one of Storey's co-thinkers – to get a take of their real view on social housing. In The Times of 5 March 1981, this paragon of Liberal virtue said: "Really we ought to be building homes for rich people. What Liverpool needs is more wealthy inhabitants. The dominance of council tenants only fosters the ghetto mentality."

Of course Storey and Kemp fit in with Blair's social engineering experiments, hence the government's recent patronage of them. It is interesting that Storey's administration is now busy selling off the very housing that the 47 surcharged councillors that he smears risked positions, homes, security and often jobs and futures in order to build.
Councillor Rob Windsor, Socialist Party group, Coventry city council

Aragon misprunt
In response to the letter from Colin Brown (22 August, page 22), may I point out that the housing association referred to is called Aragon, not Aragorn.

Our name was chosen because of the strong historical connection between our head office's location in Ampthill and Catherine of Aragon, the first wife of King Henry VIII. Brown's error occurred, I imagine, because of a misprint in Housing Today's 8 August issue.

I am sorry to upset his literary comparison of stock transfer associations with evil wizards but perhaps this situation sums up the opponents of stock transfer, who normally base their arguments on incorrect information.
Alan Humphreys, chief executive, Aragon Housing Association, Ampthill, Bedfordshire

Called to account
I felt your article regarding the findings of the latest global accounts for housing associations (15 August, page 14) painted a rather different picture to that of the accounts themselves.

The accounts conclude that "generally, housing associations are in a sound financial position".

The reason for this financial stability is prudent business practice on the part of our members. As a result, housing associations are able to "provide additional social housing to the community and to raise private finance to help fund this provision". This ability to borrow must be used responsibly.

The accounts, quite rightly, emphasise this need to be vigilant over increased debt and interest costs to this end – this is the only sensible financial advice.

In drawing overly critical and disproportionate attention to this advice, your article failed to convey the true circumstances of a financially confident sector with the capacity to build on its existing achievements.

Please also note that the authors of the accounts were Gordon Ibbotson and Brian Fisher of FSMD on behalf of the Housing Corporation and the National Housing Federation. Janine Relph is the federation's coordinating editor and not the author as cited in your article.
Liz Potter, director of policy, National Housing Federation

What's in a name?
James Tickell ("Les mots justes", 15 August, page 34) highlights the success of the French rebranding of Sociétés Anonymes as "Enterprises Sociales pour l'Habitat". However, before we rush into a massive and expensive relabelling exercise, we need to consider the consequences of losing an identity that has served the sector for the past half-century or more. The history of rebranding is littered with failed attempts to escape negative public perceptions by a change of name. Consignia failed to lose its association with the Post Office and regular government rebranding of benefit services has certainly failed to lose the legacy of the DSS. Indeed, most name changes only arouse the public's suspicion that there is a problem.

So, what exactly are we running away from? As a housing movement, we actually have little to hide. Whatever else we do as major players in community regeneration, our core purpose remains the provision of high-quality affordable housing and associated support services. If we were starting from scratch then maybe we could think of something better but the term "housing association" is not a bad generic label.

Rather than reject the identity as something to be ashamed of, perhaps we should reclaim the term, redefine it and ensure that it becomes identified with the best of our members' services. Indeed, there is an argument that one of the strengths of the sector is its history of not-for-profit service. To discard the name is to discard our historical credibility and give credence to the hostile propaganda peddled by anti-transfer campaigners.

The reclaiming tactic has been successful for several companies. Notably, car manufacturer Skoda openly challenged its previous reputation for low quality with some genuine improvements in design and quality control. A closer parallel, perhaps, can be found in the black, disabled and gay civil rights movements. After a generation of inventing new terms that attempted to stress the "people first" ethos (people of colour/with disabilities and so on), the movements reclaimed previously negative (even insulting) terms and presented them back to us with pride.

And housing associations have a lot to be proud of. Most examples of innovative community housing solutions come from our sector. Design standards are higher, rents are carefully controlled and surpluses reinvested. We are making rapid shifts towards a customer-focused culture and that shows in increasing tenant satisfaction. The best associations offer models of community ownership that others can only hope to emulate.

Of course there are issues that we need to tackle. We don't all get it right and some housing associations do fail to meet the standards of the best. But that won't be solved by a change of name. The French strategy worked because of what they do, not because of what they call themselves. Instead of seeking a new name, perhaps the sector should reclaim the quality agenda and reinvent itself as a proper value-based housing movement that can fly the housing association flag with pride.
Howard John, director, Welsh Federation of Housing Associations

Health and efficiency
I was pleased to see our annual report given extensive coverage in Housing Today ("Castle Vale HAT work makes residents live seven years longer", 15 August, page 12). But I feel the headline is a little misleading on the extent of our achievements.

Evidence from Health Authority research does indeed show that the health of the community has improved significantly since Castle Vale HAT was set up in 1993, but it does not stretch to a seven-year improvement in life expectancy during the nine years of the HAT's existence.

The improvements achieved are based on a wide-ranging programme carried out by the Primary Care Trust and many other organisations working in partnership with the HAT. Furthermore, in spite of the considerable progress made in health, I am mindful of the fact that there is still some way to go to address specific health issues such as chronic heart disease and cancer. By working with our colleagues in the health sector, these issues will be a priority in the period ahead.

What I am particularly pleased about, though, is that I think it is now widely accepted that health is a key component of any regeneration programme. That was not the case when we started back in 1993.
Angus Kennedy, chief executive, Castle Vale Housing Action Trust, Birmingham

Right to buy: A compromise
The right-to-buy articles in Housing Today seem to start from the premise that it should either be kept, albeit at a capped rate, or the whole scheme should be removed from the statute book (4 July, page 16).

May I offer a very simple solution to the right-to-buy debate – that the discount element is removed altogether. This will allow existing tenants to retain the right to buy and, if they do exercise their "right", they will pay full market value for their home.

The attraction of right-to-buy properties being bought to rent on the private market or bought to realise an enormous capital gain will cease to be an attractive proposition. After all, apart from political dogma, there is no logical reason why a tenant should be entitled to a discount.
Paul Carr, London N4