Transfer notes

We're good at catchphrases: "partnership", "joining up", "Housing Plus Plan"; but I wonder whether we all really think hard about housing's impact and importance.

We need to question the basic premise.

I've often been surprised by the way local authorities regard stock transfer "corporately". In the early days of large-scale voluntary transfer I attributed this to chief executives being content (relieved perhaps) to see a determined housing director ploughing on and taking the career risk of a "no" ballot. As transfers have moved into the unitary metropolitan authorities I've realised housing doesn't light up many dials in a council's control centre. Education and social services – that's where the money and the headlines are. At worst, housing transfer can be treated as a nice tenant participation exercise, only worthy of a hut on a neglected estate.

There are also turf problems. Regeneration is exciting, and deserving often of a separate department and attracting the chief executive's personal interest. Housing can end up kept in an organisational or mental box.

We need to change these attitudes. Housing and regeneration are not exclusive terms. But what happens to the glossy regeneration brochures if council housing remains starved of funds (public and private) and attention?