Chameleons or Trojan Horses? The strange case of housing action trusts

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Housing Action Trusts (HATs) were conceived by the British government in 1987 as agencies to secure the compulsory removal from local housing authorities of properties needing improvement. They seemed yet another example of a consistent strategy of Conservative governments in the 1980s to transfer functions from elected local government to agencies appointed by the central administration. This new policy looked like more material for party political conflict at both central and local level and the expected conflict took place to such an extent that each of the original six HATs proposed for inner city estates were vetoed by tenants. But by April 1991 the first HAT had been set up after agreement between Hull City Council and the government. In August of the same year Waltham Forest followed and in July 1992 a ballot for a prospective HAT was held in Liverpool. Interest in establishing HATs has accelerated following the Conservative election victory in April 1992 and the government has also restated its interest in receiving direct approaches from tenant groups as well as from local authorities. So what has happened? Is the change another example of Labour local authorities having to come to terms with popular demand for reducing the public housing sector (the Trojan horse scenario) or is it an example of central government salvaging something from a policy which under‐estimated the popularity of council housing (the chameleon scenario)? This article tries to analyse these competing interpretations.

This publication has 3 references indexed in Scilit: