The whole issue of the future of council housing in Crawley has been simmering for some time. Since the Tories took control of the Town Hall it has started to become even more prominent.

The Labour administration were going through the motions as required by law, but at the same time were actively pursuing the mythical “fourth option”. The CLP is 100% behind the retention of council housing, although the group had to support putting it to a vote of the tenants.

I think this was wise. There was little chance of the council tenants voting for change, but having the ballot would prevent anything being imposed. In my own opinion, the over-riding consideration is the non-reversibility of transferring ownership: if it turns out to be a mistake you cannot turn the clock back. Maybe I am naïve, but I still hold out a bit of hope that the government will actually follow the decision of the party conference and allow a level playing field eventually. It would be disastrous if that happened and we had already transferred ownership. If retention were to cause insurmountable problems then another ballot could be taken later.

Another consideration in all this is that for years the amount spent on the repair and maintenance of council houses was far less than the amount collected in rents. This profit or surplus was used to subsidise the general account, until such practice was banned. Now we are told that it will cost £10million to bring all the properties up to the ‘Decent Homes’ standard and I can’t see the problem with appending that part of the reserves which was built up by accumulating housing revenue surpluses.

However, at the moment, the activity within the Tory party is more interesting than the principles.

The previous Labour administration had resolved that the Council should be impartial in its advice to the tenants, and just provide the facts in as neutral a manner as possible. This was always going to lead to internal struggles since the councillors would be urging the tenants to vote for retention, as per Crawley party policy. Anyway, losing the election did enable Labour councillors to be more unequivocal.

In the meantime, the Tories decided that the Council’s literature to tenants should not be neutral, but should urge them to vote for transfer for their sake and for the good of the town. This decision of the Executive was called in and a special council meeting was called.

With the Tories having only a majority of one, and knowing that two of their members are against transfer, there was a possibility of this decision being overturned. In reality, 6 Labour councillors could not attend the meeting, and one who did attend left the meeting before the vote was taken. On the other side only two Tories could not make it, and they were the ones against transfer anyway.

The next edition of the Crawley Observer had a headline about the two missing Tories which read “True blue or yellow?” Although I always enjoy the novelty of seeing the local paper attack a Tory I think this was probably a bit unfair, but no less amusing in spite of that.

I am actually a little confused about the position of one of the two ‘rebels’ – our old friend and despicable, mendacious little shit, Alan Quirk. He is a member of the executive. I am pretty sure that the council’s constitution used to say that once an executive decision was taken the members of the executive not only have to vote for it if it goes to full council, but have to speak in support of it as well. I do wonder what he would have done had he turned up.

A letter that Quirk sent the Observer in reply last week was very guarded. In it he says “I have made it clear on many occasions that I am not in favour of the transfer of council housing to housing associations, the last time being at the latest council executive meeting.” No mention of the future. I am not 100% sure whether even this letter is against the spirit of the council’s constitution.

Lest we forget, a few years ago two members of the Labour executive resigned their post as they were unable to support the executive’s position on something. If Quirk feels unable to support his executive’s decision maybe he should do the same?