An analysis of the Unite Community program

Unite’s ambitious new community membership program for people who are not in paid employment, is now underway and so some analysis is appropriate. It seems to be doing very well, and it is an ambitious and welcome entry into a community activist scene dominated by ‘partnership’ approaches and neo-liberal development. There is a great deal more enthusiasm and vibrancy than you might usually find in the rest of the trade union movement. It certainly seems that it has great potential, and with the backing of the biggest civil society organisation in the UK, it will certainly do well. It is a project I am very interested in, in my role as a community activist, and because I am considering whether to start a Unite community branch where I stay. But there seems to be some issues with the program as it stands, and how it can move beyond being a branch for people who are not in paid employment.

What is Unite Community?

First though, how does the community program work? Well, anyone who is unwaged, unemployed, retired, a student, can join, for 50p per week. There are 7, soon to be 10 community organisers each covering a very large region of Britain, who have been employed by the union to coordinate and encourage their community members to take on a range of campaigns, from welfare, to saving local community services.

The organisers are on a generous £30k+ per year, which gives some idea of how financially committed the union is to this plan. Some branches, such as Tower Hamlets and Liverpool have as many as 400 people, with dozens of activists attending meetings, and are running exciting campaigns against cuts and austerity. They are also setting up Unite run community centres, in several parts of the country. It certainly seems that Unite is giving the community program lots of resources and are planning to expand and grow it.

Ambitious plans, structures and campaigns

Unites plan is welcome in a community scene where the dominant angle is the neo-liberal and market based views found in most community development, and ‘big society’ projects. For example, volunteer run libraries replacing council services, and employability schemes that help people back into poorly paid work, without addressing the structural roots of problems. Unite is already providing a great example for progressive community organising which, for example, the partnership focused tenants movement can learn from.

But at the moment it hasn’t coalesced into a coherent program. Unite has said they don’t want a top down approach, but instead to allow for unforseen needs and directions. There are very successful ‘community organising’ models, which are fairly widespread, which they could learn from. Such as the trade union style ‘community unionism’ of ACORN, and its international affiliates. Due to the complex structure of Unite, it isn’t clear yet how community branches fit in exactly, and also they are pretty limited in terms of input into the demographic process of the Union. However it seems that there is appetite for change, and their model is improving all the time.

At the moment, the organisers have a large amount of discretion about how to run their regions, and are bringing together members and helping facilitate campaigns. Things are developing at different rates, and in different ways across the country. Issue based organising seems to be the way it is being run, and it looks likely that it will be focused on fighting cuts and austerity, and these are probably going to be the biggest issues. The poll tax was a single issue campaign, which left very little in the way of permanent organisation behind, but Unite will not make this mistake as it wants to have its permanent neighbourhood based branches doing the campaigning.

One future problem could be a contradiction between a communities interests, and that of the Union. For example, a polluting or otherwise environmentally problematic development may make a section of Unite more powerful, while the community where such a development will happen, may want to fight against it. Mining and certain types of power generation being the obvious examples. Not insurmountable problems, but certainly something to be wary of.

I think one of Unite’s important contributions will be to bring community activism back to the bread and butter of material gains for the working class, away from the quagmire of postmodern identity politics and the culsdesac of single issue campaigns, and here it will no doubt do a great job.

Membership issues

Despite the community membership being advertised as only for unwaged people such as students, the unemployed, and the retired etc., people from other unions and in work are in fact joining. This may cause tensions with other unions, and could leave unite open to allegations of poaching members, which is against the Bridlington Agreement.

Within Unite, one can not presumably be a community member and a healthcare member simultaneously, for example, and so some Unite members who maybe be very active in their community can not properly fit into the community membership structure. Similarly, community development workers who might be well suited to working within Unite’s community membership structure may find difficulties here as well.

Strategically, people in paid employment should probably be in the relevant section of Unite or in the relevant union for their workplace, and hopefully the Unite community membership will not create a barrier to this. Despite these issues though, neighbourhood based union organisations in working class areas have great potential for increasing trade union membership, by reaching people in casual employment who are very difficult to unionise, and are a rapidly increasing proportion of the workforce.

The bottom line?

Money is always an issue in politics. Unite membership is 50p per week, a very affordable rate for an unemployed or unwaged person. However, only 7.5% of this returns to community branches. This means that branches are not able to be financially self sufficient, and they are recommended to apply for money from other branches of the union that have more money. It seems that there will be a fair bit of competition for funding within Unite once the community program grows, and employed branches will run out of money. This 7.5% rate also does not encourage branches to work to recruit, but hopefully the quality of the campaigning will be enough to bring in new members.

The fact that this community program is tied into Unite in this way, means that they may have difficulties recruiting people from other unions or people who have a wage, and so compared to independent community organisations who can recruit anyone, like ACORN, this is a disadvantage. Because it can properly recruit waged people, ACORN Canada has dues of between $10 to $30.

Unite have worked out that it takes 1500 members to cover the costs of a community organiser, and despite assurances being made that ‘its not about numbers’ you can’t help but wonder, if the program isn’t coming close to breaking even at some point will they axe it? There are of course ‘positive externalities’ which wouldn’t be taken into consideration with a ‘bottom line’ approach, such as increasing peoples positive impressions of unions (it is widely felt for example that unions are selfish and only in it for themselves) something which is being countered by the community program. I believe though, that the value of the campaigns run by Unite’s community branches will be worth the costs, and the union as a whole will recognise this.

Political problems

Politically there are interesting questions as well. Labour party affiliation is a big concern for many people, and its very off putting considering the role of the party in cuts and the rolling back of the welfare state in the very recent past – something which is exactly what the community program is fighting against. So, quite rightly, many people are pointing this out and are not happy. Though, the answer to that is that you can argue and vote for disaffiliation within the union better than from without.

The other political issue is the fact that the community program is the significant far left involvement. This may be off putting to some potential members. Some may also question the far lefts competence and ability to manage such a program, and put aside its sectarianism and infighting. The left sometimes ‘projects’ issues onto a community which it thinks are important, rather than asking the community what its needs are. The other issue is that the more centrist mainstream of the union may not appreciate a growing far left influence. The far left could get the community program shut down, if it is clumsy with its plans, which in part seem to involve using community membership radicalise the union.

Suggestions

I am strongly in favour of community organising and working hand-in-glove with the trade union movement, and would love to see this kind of project succeed. So, how could the Unite model of organising be improved then? Or what might be a more appropriate vehicle for a model of community organising working hand-in-glove with the unions?

In terms of Unite’s plans, they could learn from a very trade-union style of community organising such as that found in the hugely successful ACORN model. This is membership based, multiple issue, turf based organising, in working class areas, with an emphasis on door knocking and having conversations with people in order to find the most widely and deeply felt issues in those areas. ACORN branches run powerful and participatory campaigns, involving direct action, protest, and publicity stunts. ACORN grew to 500,000 members in the United States, and was credited with redistributing tens of billions of dollars from the state and big business to low income people. ACORN has an international, with affiliates in south America, Europe, and Asia. The 45,000 strong Canadian section for example, is active on living wage campaigns amongst many others. Clearly a formidable example of ‘community unionism’.

How could Unite follow ACORN more closely? They would need to allow all their members to be ‘community members’ in some way, and allow them to hook into the community branches more properly. For example, Unite could have workplace and community branches, where membership of a community branch is automatic for all its members depending on where they are living. Every Unite member regardless of industry, could be a member of the relevant community branch. This doesn’t avoid the potential problem of people being in other unions though.

Overall, it seems to me that Unite running this community program by itself is a disadvantage. A joint project run by the big unions, potentially through the TUC would be more appropriate, through a semi-independent organisation. This could allow people who work to be members of a community organisation, not just the unwaged. And it would ensure that problems of people already being members of other unions be no longer a problem. This organisation could encourage all the people it meets in working class areas to join the appropriate union, while also encouraging them to be involved in turf based community organising. All the benefits of being backed by big unions like Unite, and fewer of the problems.

Concluding thoughts

The Unite Community project will no doubt be a success, since it has the backing of the biggest civil society organisation in the UK. It is also not a program set in stone, and seems keen to learn from its experiences on the ground to improve what it is doing. It has an approach which I believe will refresh peoples views about what community organisations should be doing in a time where the very idea of ‘community’ has been stolen by neo-liberals and used as an excuse for rolling back the welfare state. But at the moment, it may struggle to move beyond being a powerful unwaged section of Unite. People in employment belong to communities as well, and may find it difficult to properly be ‘community members’ as things stand.

I would like to see powerful community organisations, working hand-in-glove with the unions, with a national scope and influence, and Unite has certainly made a positive step towards this, but we are not there yet. I had been considering setting up a Unite branch in my neighbourhood, however, because of the issues noted above, I will be pursuing a project in my area following the ACORN model of community organising. I will ensure we have very strong links with Unite, and the wider trade union movement, but maintain the independence that allows for better financing, and the involvement of a broader section of the working class.

Planting ACORNs - a different approach to community activism

As community activists, involved in our community councils or tenants and residents associations, there is always that sense that we could be doing more. Wouldnt it be great if we were involved in a community organisation that has 500,000 members, and was credited with re-distributing tens of billions of pounds from big business and the state to low income people? Sounds impossible! But this is exactly what one community organisation, called the Association of Community Organisations for Reform Now (ACORN) has achieved in the United States.

Community Council’s (CC’s) and Tenants and Residents Associations (TRA’s) in the UK share some similarities with groups like ACORN, and so comparisons are very relevant. They are all geographically based groups, that deal with many issues, and people from many different backgrounds. They are what the founder of ACORN calls ‘majority constituency’ groups, not focused on a single issue campaign or a specific demographic. They would often be campaigning on similar issues such as housing and service provision. There are lots of differences in style and structure though, and it is these differences which really make for an organisation with more vitality, and one which can have those impressive achievements.

Reading about ACORN and speaking to its founder, Wade Rathke, over the last few months has greatly impressed me, and encouraged me to wonder what I can borrow from the way they organise to help me with my work in the local tenants and residents group which I chair, or with the city wide private tenants group which I am the secretary of. What can we learn about ACORN which could help us achieve more in our communities?

One of the main differences between ACORN and our community organisations is membership and finance. Our organisations usually have a symbolic membership, where communities or streets are covered by a group, but not in any formal or concrete way, and they can be pretty unrepresentative. People do not opt-in to become members – they are members by default. This is in contrast to ACORN which has a formal membership structure, and which only represents people who sign up and pay ten or twenty dollars a month. 

They are also mainly funded by their members dues, and from some donations and grants as well. Being funded largely by their membership seems very important, it gives a great amount of independence from external sources of funding, be it Local Authorities in the case of TRA’s, or foundations in the case of single issue campaigning groups. For ACORN, it also seems to give members a greater sense of ownership over an organisation and encourage a sense of belonging to it, something which can be lacking in other community organisations. Their formal membership enables a very democratic organisation, that is led by its members, through voting, at a local level, city level, and ultimately deciding policy on the national level.

It also allows for progress to be more objectively measured. You can see how well connected you are to your community in terms of how many people join up and pay their dues. It means that a group is far more responsive to the needs of its members – if it isn’t doing what people want then people leave and its funding drops. This is quite unlike CC’s and TRA’s who are often funded by local authority grants, and can be quite un-responsive to their communities.

ACORN branches always do extensive door knocking in the areas they operate in, and in fact, this door knocking approach could be said to be the cornerstone of their organisational model. Through these regular door-to-door interviews they find out what the most widely-felt and deeply-felt issues are, and recruit new people into their organisation. This means that there is a greater independence to campaign on the issues that members choose, unlike TRA’s and CC’s which are usually involved in community planning/tenant participation structures which are often very much led by Council agendas and priorities, leaving little time and energy for independent campaigning. In most community organisations the issues picked to campaign on are usually picked on the basis of whoever turns up to meetings, and only occasionally involve door-to-door consultations. 

Because of this emphasis on door knocking to find the best issues, ACORN branches have much more participatory style, involving their members in planning the campaigns, in a more exciting and empowering process. This approach does seem to counter the widespread apathy that tenants groups generally report. There is a greater emphasis on conflict, mobilising members, and being visible with more effective use of the media. ACORN groups will often use direct action in their campaigns, sometimes protests, publicity stunts and other more disruptive actions like office occupations.

In order to sustain this kind of activity, they employ community organisers, who are paid from the members dues. These organisers assist members with developing their skills to run ACORN branches, do door-knocking, and run effective and strategic campaigns. These campaigns are based on ACORN’s extensive knowledge of running such campaigns, and they tend to focus on their members material self-interests, and aim to have visible results.

One criticism of ACORN might be that you are better working within the system, than from the outside. However, ACORN tends to do both, employing antagonistic tactics to increase its influence, to get a seat at the table, and to show they mean business when they negotiate with decision-makers. The partnership approach that is almost fundamental to many community organisations in the UK certainly doesn’t give us much influence beyond what the city councils grant us in their community planning structures.

With their antagonistic and participatory style, ACORN branches are involved in local campaigns that we would find familiar, such as getting local parks cleaned up, or improving local authority service provision. Other victories have been living wage campaigns, which ensure their low income members get to take home more money at the end of the month. Due to the size of the organisation they have been capable of impressive coordinated national campaigns, for example winning concessions from banks involved in predatory lending. The campaigns they pick tend to have very visible gains for its members, and often more money in their pockets. One study estimated that from 1994 to 2004 ACORN redistributed $15 billion dollars to low income families.

For example, in a national campaign against predatory lending, ACORN picketed around 50 offices of a big financial services company, H&R Block, on two occasions. This encouraged the company to negotiation, and ACORN won substantial concessions, including funding to go door-to-door encouraging low income working families to take up benefits that they were entitled to, like working tax credits, and money for ACORN’s financial advice programmes.

The demographics are also pretty different. While community organisations in the UK tend to struggle to have ethnic minorities and younger people involved, and are largely older or retired people, ACORN groups tend to be more representative. There are more people of working age, families, and very diverse ethnically, with large numbers of non-white people involved. This is certainly due to the more involving style of campaigning that they employ, the door knocking and the effort to ensure the issues picked are those which affect large numbers of people in a strong way.

One issue that must be mentioned is the collapse of ACORN in the USA. Having grown to 500,000 members and re-distributing billions of dollars from big business and the state to low income people it became the target of the right wing in the USA, who resented its growing influence. There isn’t room to go into it here, but several spurious allegations were championed by the right wing media, leading to it losing allies and funding.

It is down but not out, dozens of its local branches, affiliates and programmes still exist in the USA, and the living wage laws they helped win still benefit millions of people. There is also now an ACORN international which has chapters in countries around the world including Canada, Peru, India, Czech Republic and Italy. Canada ACORN is a good example, having grown rapidly to 45,000 members and is active on the living wage, payday lending and healthy homes.

Our community organisations in the UK could learn a great deal from ACORN, and I believe that we should borrow as much as possible from their model of organising to make our community organisations more relevant and powerful. Most importantly we should work towards creating an ACORN-like organisation here in the UK.

Further reading:   

For more on the ACORN organising model, you can read one of their training manuals - http://chieforganizer.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ACORN-Organizing-Model.pdf
There is an excellent book written by John Atlas, on the history and methodology of ACORN - http://www.scribd.com/doc/57787950/Seeds-of-Change-The-Story-of-ACORN-America-s-Most-Controversial-Antipoverty-Community-Organizing-Group  
Another excellent book about ACORN, ‘The People Shall Rule’ – http://www.scribd.com/doc/57783977/The-People-Shall-Rule-ACORN-Community-Organizing-and-the-Struggle-for-Economic-Justice    - For an overview about what ‘community organizing’ is compared to other types of activity in the community, this article is excellent - http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers97/beckwith.htm  
There isnt space to cover the reasons for the problems with the tenants movement, which are identified above. Essentially housing policy since the 80’s including right to buy and stock transfer has led to its decline as a social movement. For more information: http://www.criticalplace.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Proud_to_be_a_Tenant_20121.pdf , an article written by Sarah Glynn on the tenants’ movement http://www.sarahglynn.net/The%20Tenants’%20Movement.html and Kim McKee on ‘The ‘responsible’ tenant and the problem of apathy’, http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/6098/1/6098.pdf

For a private rented tenants movement

The beginnings of the tenants movement was in opposition to slum housing, owned by private landlords, and the fight for better housing conditions. The tenants movement needs to return to these roots in private housing, to once more become a powerful force for progressive social change.

In recent years, there has been an increase in the numbers of people in the Private Rented Sector (PRS). The right to buy has in many areas led to a large increase in private rented housing, and as a result of the recession, greater numbers of people are now unable to buy a home due to lack of income or credit. Nationwide, the larger private landlords are buying up homes that people can no longer afford and are cashing in on the increased demand.

Stock transfer, and the right to buy have severely weakened the tenants movement as an influential force in politics. The tenants movement is an ageing population, and does not represent many people outside of social housing, such as those in the private rented sector. Private tenants not only need the support of the tenants movement more, due to a greater level of exploitation and insecurity, but they are also potentially the solution to the demographic problems that are facing the tenants movement.

In recent decades, the tenants movement has been facing similar challenge to the trade unions. The unions are struggling in the private sector, where there are lots of migrants and younger people with insecure contracts, while the majority of their strength is in the public sector. Similarly, people in the PRS have far more insecure tenancies are less well organised than people with secure ones, such as council tenants.

Since the demographic of the PRS is largely younger people and migrants, if the tenants movement was to organise and campaign around issues confronting these tenants, this would provide an opportunity to rebuild and develop a younger generation activists. Something which the tenants movement sorely needs.

To bring this about, Tenants and Residents Associations, and their federations, need to make a special effort to connect with the issues that affect private tenants such as criminal landlords, illegal charges, repairs, stolen deposits, and insecure tenancies. Some tenants federations have begun to do this. For example, a new group has been started called Edinburgh Private Tenants Action Group, which is supported by the Edinburgh Tenants Federation, and the Scottish Tenants Organisation.

EPTAG aims to organise private tenants around the issues that affect them, such as campaigning for the de-registration of criminal landlords, against letting agency fees, and more generally for greater rights for private tenants, and for increased security of tenure.  One of the aims of this group is to engage with, and re-vitalise the wider tenants movement, so that it is once more an influential force for progressive social change.

It is too soon to say whether this group will meet the challenges of the private rented sector, and fulfil its aim of rebuilding the tenants movement. But some things are clear. There has been a recent trends towards growth in the PRS following the right to buy and the recession, a housing sector rife with insecurity and exploitation that is largely not organised by the tenants movement. Also, the demographic decline of the tenants movement could be countered by organising these, generally much younger, private tenants. It therefore seems certain that returning to the private rented roots of the tenants movement will be an essential part of any strategy for its revitalisation.

Rent control for a living rent.

Rents in the private rented housing market are becoming extortionate, with many tenants falling into 'rent poverty'. The Governments response is making the situation worse. What is needed is a way of bringing rents under control, without punishing tenants – what is needed is rent control.

Due to the recession, people can't afford to buy a home any more, and social housing is in what seems to be terminal decline. So, for many, there is no alternative but the Private Rented Sector, and landlords are taking full advantage of this situation, by increasing the rents.

The Conservative Government argued it could reduce rents and the welfare bill by capping the Local Housing Allowance, reducing the amount of money paid out to those private tenants on benefits. However, instead of rents coming down, LHA cuts have begun to displace tenants and have increased homelessness rates.

It is not just those on benefits who are suffering from these high rents – people who receive no benefits are also paying very large proportions of their income on rent, with one study showing that rent is costing nearly half of the average British family's monthly earnings (1).

Huge numbers of people in the UK are suffering from 'rent poverty' – and it is clear that what is needed is a fairer way of controlling rents, that does not punish tenants.

What is rent control?

Rent control amongst 'free-market' economists is a taboo subject. Any interference in the housing market is said to cause distortions that result in a decline in investment in the sector. This opinion is largely based on some of the rent control programmes of the past, and on free market dogma. (2)

When many rent controls were introduced early last century, they were effectively 'rent freezes' that led to a fall in real rents and to a rent level that was far below the market level. These controls protected tenants from high rents, and from any rent increases. It also meant the sector was seen as an undesirable investment. It tended to reduce private housing supply, and often led to landlords to neglecting their properties by cutting corners on repairs and maintenance.

These forms of 'first generation' rent control were generally implemented due to the demands of strong private tenants movements, and the need for governments to make concessions during and in between world wars to stave off civil unrest. Rent controls lasted in many countries for decades, for example in the UK where they persisted until the 80's. (3)

While rent controls in many countries were abolished, the places which continued with controls evolved 'softer' forms than those described above, sometimes called 'second generation' rent control. There is a large amount of variation in these controls, and so it is difficult to generalise, however they usually allow some limited rent increases based on certain criteria. For example: to keep rents in line with inflation, following upgrades, or due to  increased maintenance costs. Some allow rents to rise unrestricted in between, but not during, tenancies. Such rent regulations are usually administered by local authorities, through rent boards or similar institutions, with recourse to appeal for both tenant and landlord.

Some economists are now arguing that well managed rent controls can be beneficial to the private rented sector, leading to steady investment, greater protections for tenants against unjust and unaffordable rents, increasing security of tenure. Even increased levels of community activism has been noted, due to more stable communities.

Rent controls are also essential for any credible security of tenure. You might have various rules for protecting a tenants right to stay in a property, however this would not stop 'economic eviction' by rents being increased beyond the means of the tenant. Rent controls would prevent this situation.

Examples of 'second generation' rent control can be found in many countries worldwide, most notably Germany, where the PRS accounts for 60% of housing stock, security of tenure is very strong, and unlimited tenancy durations are commonplace. (4)

For a living rent

For the increasing number of households living in 'rent poverty', paying large proportions of their income in rent, forced into overcrowded flats and suffering from financial hardship, something urgently needs to be done. The government's response to high rents has been to cap the LHA, but this has actually made the situation worse with families being displaced, and people made homeless.

The criticisms of rent control are based largely on 'first generation' rent control, and free-market dogma, and controls are successful in many countries around the world, leading to affordable rents, and greater security of tenure. There is really no reason why they couldn't be part of the solution for the UK's current rent crisis.

Decent, affordable housing is a human right, but the PRS is unable to meet this obligation, and so intervention is required.  The tenants movement of the past fought for, and won, significant reforms. To protect peoples right to affordable housing we need to follow in their footsteps, and demand rent control.

=======
(1) http://www.independent.co.uk/money/mortgages/families-now-spend-half-their-income-on-rent-2372563.html
(2) There is a great deal of academic literature on this topic, involving economic modelling and comparative analysis. For some neutral discussion of rent control:
Richard Arnott, 'Tenancy Rent Control', Swedish Economic Policy Review 2003, 10, 89-121
Hans Lind, 'Rent regulation: A conceptual and comparative analysis', European Journal of Housing Policy, 1 (1), 2001, 41-57  11.
(3) Before the 1980's, rent controls and the decline of the PRS in the UK actually went hand-in-hand with the tenants movements demands for social housing in the UK. This led to the construction of large numbers of council homes that have lower rents and greater security of tenure than the PRS. Due to the 'right to buy', demolitions and stock transfer policies this sector is now declining and being replaced by the PRS.
(4) Kath Scanlon and Ben Kochan (eds.) Towards a sustainable private rented sector: Lessons from other countries. LSE London 2011

A community strategy to beat austerity

The attacks on our standard of living as a result of the economic crisis and the  neo-liberal cuts agenda are currently being fought against by single issue campaigning groups and coalitions, without strong roots in communities. Lessons from the Poll Tax struggle show us that this is a strategic mistake, and a missed opportunity to re-build and re-vitalise the once the once-powerful tenants movement.

One of the main reasons that the government is able to impose these cuts and privatisations, is that traditional working class organisations have long been in decline, and are far less influential than they were. In the past, the tenants movement, along-side the unions, have been incredibly important in fighting for progressive changes to the way this country was run. From the Red Clydeside and the rent strikes, to fighting for post-war social housing and decent public services, the tenants movement has been significant force for progressive social change.

These days, following de-industrialisation and the privatisation of council housing, the tenants movement, like the unions, have lost much of their strength – but they have not lost their potential.

If we recognise that the decline of these traditional organisations have in many ways created the opening needed for these kinds of neo-liberal reforms, re-building them must form part of any strategy.  Any fight against these cuts  must also attempt to strengthen these traditional working class organisations that can ensure that we are in a stronger position in the future.

There are two strategic disadvantages to the way the anti-cuts struggle is currently being organised. The first is related to their 'single-issue' focus, and the second is their 'centralisation', and the huge areas these groups are supposed to cover. Both of these issues suggest that reviving the tenants movement is now more important than ever.

Single issues

There are a huge number of cuts that are affecting our neighbourhoods, which Tenants and Residents Associations (TRA) could be involved in. However, the majority of campaigns against these cuts and closures in our communities are single-issue campaigning groups. They are either focused on a particular asset that the community wants to keep, such as a community centre or library, or they are broad anti-cuts campaigning groups, opposing individual cuts, and building for national demonstrations.

Whether the campaign is successful or not, the single-issue campaigning group, its contacts, experience and momentum are largely lost. An example here is the Poll Tax movement. There were large federations of neighbourhood level organisations with a single purpose, to oppose the Poll Tax. After that struggle was won, the Poll Tax groups all but disappeared, and with them, the networks, experience and resources were largely lost.

Centralisation

The second issue is that these single-issue anti-cuts groups tend to cover very large areas. For example, in Edinburgh there is North Edinburgh Fights Back, which covers most of the Forth ward, which is roughly 30,000 people. The Leith anti-cuts group potentially covers the council wards of Leith Walk and Leith, which contain 18,000 people, and 25,000 people respectively. This indicates a high degree of centralisation, and a lack of engagement with the grass-roots.

This is another lesson we can learn from the anti-Poll Tax struggle. While it was national demonstrations making headlines, the real backbone of the movement was in the grass-roots. People were organising with their neighbours to set up local Anti-Poll Tax Unions, to support one another, to resist sheriff officers, and build for those impressive demonstrations. There were twenty-five Poll Tax groups in Edinburgh alone, and three in North Edinburgh. These groups even had block coordinators on most streets, knocking on doors, publicising meetings, and delivering leaflets to their neighbours. The way it was organised built strong networks of local activists and a sense of community.

The potential of the tenants movement

So with those two points in mind, it makes more strategic sense to use the anti-austerity struggle to strengthen long term community organisations like Tenants and Residents Association. There are around 50 Tenants and Residents Associations in the Edinburgh Tenants Federation which could be re-invigorated, and there are many areas where there are none. These are organisations which can carry on after the cuts struggle, whatever the outcome might be. And since these organisations are decentralised and rooted in our communities, they could take on the critical role that the local Poll Tax groups did, in building and sustaining a successful national campaign.

As the Poll Tax struggle shows us, Tenants and Residents Association's may well be exactly the kind of organisations that are needed to beat austerity. This struggle presents an opportunity to revive and revitalise the tenants movement, and to more generally reverse the decline of working-class self-organisation that presented the opening for these kinds of neo-liberal reforms in the first place. Neighbourhood-level organisations such as Tenants Residents Associations and the federations there-of could once more become an influential political and social force, involved in community planning, local democracy, and fighting for progressive change.