In my last column I promised thoughts on the transfer process. The current position is unsatisfactory all round. For opponents of transfer it's the "done deal" culmination of a selling exercise; for supporters it's a demand for an answer when voters aren't ready to make a decision to leave the council.

For the early shire transfers a simple yes/no ballot was right: how else would a council show it had a mandate from individual tenants when trust in the Council was high and tenant empowerment low?

For politicised, unionised metropolitan transfers, yes/no ballots are looking silly. They are hijacked by scaremongering so fear and misunderstanding lead to a no vote, and the opportunity for stock investment and community regeneration is lost.

There is no legal requirement for a ballot. The secretary of state simply has to be satisfied that a majority of tenants are not opposed. It's naive to do away with a ballot, but there is no need to make it a yes/no one. It could be used to engage with tenants individually, find out what they want, and sort out misunderstandings.

The result would then show the real level of support for transfer. The proposal could then be modified and tenants invited to make individual objections to the government (the current "stage 2" process). Those objections will enable the secretary of state to discharge his statutory duties.

Many questions no doubt spring to readers' minds and I'll try to deal with the supplementaries next time.