The role of discourse in the legitimation of housing policy

(1)

The Role of Discourse in the Legitimation of Housing

Policy

Sarah Watson

Student ID: 10635823

sarah.m.watson.07@aberdeen.ac.uk

Thesis Seminar Urban Sociology, March 2014 Walter Nicholls & Freek Janssens

(2)

Abstract

Scotland has been unable to meet housing demand due to its growing housing crisis. The housing crisis was sparked by the shift towards neoliberal ideology, characterised by the ‘Right to Buy’ policy, which allowed tenants of publicly owned housing to buy their homes at discounted rates. Many scholars have explored the role of discourse in this transition towards homeownership in the UK. What this thesis seeks to show is how discourse disseminated by policy makers contributes to the legitimisation of housing policy and related regeneration projects. This research will focus on the case study of the East End of Glasgow, which is currently undergoing redevelopment in preparation for the Commonwealth Games. This research will focus on the case study of the East End of Glasgow, which is currently undergoing redevelopment in preparation for the Commonwealth Games. Many other examinations of UK housing have focused on England as a representation of the UK as a whole; Scotland has a particular socio-economic and political context which differs from the rest of the UK. This thesis seeks to explore discourse in the context of Scotland.

(3)

1. Introduction

Since the 1980s, Scottish public housing has undergone a process of privatisation leading to the increasing inability of local authorities to house socially and economically vulnerable individuals, who they remain legally obliged to house. Despite the problems caused by this process of privatisation, the values that were strongly emphasised by

Thatcherism such as home ownership, self-reliance and minimal state provision of housing have not only survived but remain, to this day, central tenets within housing policy in Scotland as well as the rest of the UK. Since the devolution of powers from Westminster to the Scottish Government in Holyrood in 1998, Scottish housing policy has endeavoured to become more sympathetic and 'inclusive' in tone. However, the effect of privatising

discourses can still be seen in the way that housing tenures are discussed in policy documents, politicians and the media.

This thesis seeks to explore how privatising trends within social housing policy remain dominant (despite attempts by policymakers to distance themselves from

Thatcherism, which is extremely unpopular in Scotland, especially in Labour strongholds like Glasgow) through the perspective of discourse. I will conclude that in order for policy to genuinely change its course, enduring discourses of privatisation must be overcome with a reframing of the issue. With the aid of newspapers, blogs, development reports and policy documents published by the Scottish Government, Glasgow Housing Association and other stakeholders such as the Clyde Gateway development company, I intend show how the dissemination of communicative discourse by decision makers, institutions and other related parties contributes to the legitimation of housing policy trends. What makes these trends significant is that they may go against the interests of the local residents, e.g. the demolition of current social housing stock and the shift away from council housing, towards Housing Associations and low-rent landlords. (Glynn, 2012)

While these policy trends are UK-wide, I intend to study the case of Scotland, focusing specifically on the East End of Glasgow. Glasgow has had a tumultuous history in

(5)

regard to housing redevelopment, due to its uniquely high proportion of social housing and poverty. Despite Scotland generally holding the lowest unemployment figures in the UK, Glasgow has has one of the highest. Glasgow’s East End makes for an interesting case study for several reasons. It has become synonymous with deprivation and poor housing, which has given it the reputation of being a 'wild', dangerous place, which is significant when exploring frontier discourse. The Glasgow Housing Association, the sole provider of social housing in the constituency since 2002, is the largest organisation of its kind in the UK, if not Europe, and is perpetually the subject of numerous regeneration projects (Glasgow City Council: Development and Regeneration Services). In 2007, the City of Glasgow was thrilled to be named the host for the 2014 Commonwealth Games and was hopeful about the effect this would have on the people of the East End. The games are wrapped in a discourse of the “Legacy” of the Games - the “Legacy” of regeneration and improved health of the local residents which the projects and development surrounding the Games are hoped to bring. Like many mega-events, the preparation for the Games and related development projects have caused many changes, disturbances and even displacement for local residents. “Legacy” is a justification campaign strategy which advertises the Games to the residents themselves, with the aim to legitimise and ultimately gain consensus from them on the benefits of the Games, which would ultimately ideally be perceived as outweighing the negative aspects of regenerative developments.

Policy-makers and major political parties take pains to present themselves as pro-social housing, which interestingly complicates the simple notion of hegemonic discourse, power and social control. Elsewhere in the UK, it is quite common to hear antisocial housing sentiment from politicians, policy-makers, and the media, all of whom use narratives which vilify those who live within such housing (and welfare recipients in general). Stigmatisation of social housing residents has often been connected to the privatisation of the sector. However, in Scotland, this does not necessarily appear to be the case. The narratives which are used by politicians and policy-makers in Scotland are often much more sympathetic. The reason for this is that the economy of Scotland has been traditionally more industrial than the rest of the UK, with a bigger working class concentrated in the cities, which means that it would be politically damaging for politicians to run on a platform that is openly against the interests of people in social housing, who constitute large swathes of the voting electorate.

(6)

Areas such as the West of Scotland, and Glasgow in particular, are relatively left-wing Labour strongholds. If these areas are pro-Labour, low income, and tend to be pro-social housing, then how is discourse used to simultaneously suppress this narrative and to obfuscate the realities of policy and ‘regeneration’ projects?

Furthermore, I will briefly examine the competing narratives employed by local groups, and opposing politicians, as they interact and struggle for ideological hegemony. These narratives show that while the privatising narratives are hegemonic, they are not entirely convincing; dissent, as expressed by local blogs, media, and residents' groups, illustrate that privatising discourses fail to achieve complete consensus.

My main research question is:

What role does the dissemination of discourse by policy-makers play in the reproduction and legitimisation of housing policy?

I will answer this question by exploring the following sub-questions:

1.What are the ideas, concepts and categorisations behind social housing policy discourses?

2.How successful have these discourses been in legitimising social housing policy

3.What are the competing discourses to this process and how successful are they in combating housing policy trends?

(7)

2. Methodology

This thesis will take a discursive approach to legitimisation by following Norman

Fairclough’s “textually-orientated discourse analysis” in order to unpack its contribution to social change. While there exists a wide variety of discourse analysis methodologies across various disciplines, I feel that his ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’, or CDA, is suited to my goals as it “places emphasis on [Foucault’s ] concept of power which is ‘prior to language’, so that power relations are reflected in language, but are not a consequence of language.” (Hewitt, 2009:3)

Hewitt states that Critical Discourse Analysis requires that the researcher takes a deeply reflexive and objective view of the subject matter in order to observe the “assumptions and practices that form the rules of discourse formation” (Hewitt, 2009: 3) However, as the meanings and assumptions embedded within discourses can be context specific to time and place, researchers must be careful when unpacking the implications behind a phrase in a context that they are not familiar with. I believe that by choosing a place that I am familiar with, I will have greater insight into the usage and implications of terms as they are used in the specific socio-political context of Scotland. The limitations of this approach are that the wide array of possible sources and perspectives are endless and so it is impossible examine them conclusively. Keeping this in mind, I have chosen to examine particular documents in-depth rather than attempt to give an overview of all possible sources.

In order to carry out my research I plan to make use of Norman Fairclough's three-pronged methodological approach to discourse analysis. This approach consists of three steps,

1 Text analysis: the analysis of vocabulary such as euphemisms, loaded words, technical jargon or imprecise terms found within policy documents, or used by managers and policy-makers. For example, the use of jargon or deliberately vague phrases such as

(8)

“social housing” that in the UK may be interpreted differently by different people.(Jacobs & Manzi, 1996)

2) Discursive practice: an (historicised approach to) analysis of how dominant narratives are formed.

3) Social practice: the analysis of how these narratives go on to produce and reproduce certain 'myths', which are then practically employed in the implementation of policy, a process which Kemeny describes as,

“The whipping up of emotional support for a myth preparatory to the implementation of policy measures allows policy-makers to influence the moral limits within which policy debates take place.” (Jacobs & Manzi, 1996: no page number)

Data Sources

I have chosen as a case study the location of Glasgow, in particular the Glasgow East End. I have chosen this site for two reasons. Firstly, it is a place that has a good deal of interest for me, and with which I am personally familiar. The upcoming independence referendum makes analysis of the particular context of Scotland particularly timely and relevant, especially when so often, analyses of the UK focus on England and incorrectly portray the UK as homogenous. Secondly, Glasgow's housing problems are famous throughout the world. The steady stream of regeneration projects and Glasgow's unique degree of deprivation make it an ideal case study for the examination of the legitimising effects of privatising discourses. I am interested in how Glasgow is represented and discussed; at a time when the housing crisis is so acute, how can the privatisation of social housing be justified and legitimised to the general public?

In order to show the relationship between institutional discourse and the success of policy, the following conventional vehicles of the dissemination of communicative discourse will be examined: local politicians' speeches/responses, government statements, and

(9)

Efficacy or failure of the ability of this communicative discourse to convince will then be shown by the presence of local resistance. Public opposition may take the form of local interest or action groups, demonstrations and negative commentary in local newspapers. The tenants and residents groups represent a failure of council discourse of regeneration and removal of social problems to convince those who will be affected by such changes.

(10)

3. Theoretical Framework:

In this section I will clarify the theoretical terms that will be used later in my argument and briefly discuss their relevance to the issue.

3.1 Discourse

The understanding of 'discourse' that is being used here is that which is summarised by Hajer as “a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations that are produced,

reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices” (Hajer 1995:44). In other words, discourse is a narrative which contains ideologies and assumptions, and these ideologies and assumptions are revealed in the use of language, which then in turn go on to influence the way in which these issues are conceived. With regards to policy, another way that discourse can be explained is “as a set of policy ideas and values and an interactive process of policy construction and communication”. (Schmidt, 2001: 249) While discourses may play a part in the policy making process, the ability of certain ensembles of discourse to influence both public opinion and policy is by no means certain, and are always at risk of being challenged by other discourses, such as those of the political opposition or the public. (Motion & Leitch, 2009:1047)

Discourse formations may be continually challenged and mercurial. However,

formations that become fairly stable may become ‘hegemonic’ in that the ideology and power relations that they consist of become legitimised as ‘common sense’. (Fairclough, 1993:90) In order to legitimise policy and convince the general public, governments often employ

(11)

patriotism or economic necessity. Furthermore, the discourses are a product of particular historical, cultural, political and social contexts, as Foucault points out:

“Discourse transformations occur within a set of historical conditions, attempt to establish new concepts and meanings, and change power relations by ‘separating out from among all the statements which are possible those that will be acceptable.’” (Foucault 1980: 197)

It is exploring this specific process of legitimation which is the focus of this thesis. Failure of these policy changes to stand up to public scrutiny can be met with public protest or poor election results. (Schmidt, 2002) Discourse, therefore, can be understood not as one static, hegemonic set of ideas and practices, but rather as a constant struggle between many, and in a particular context.

This thesis is based on Schmidt's argument that Thatcher's neoliberalism constituted a transformative, communicative discourse which was so profoundly influential that its effects are still seen today across the political spectrum. (Schmidt 2001 & 2002) I will also argue that the dissemination of current forms of this communicative discourse by decision makers, institutions and other related parties contributes to the stigmatisation of those in public housing, as well as Glasgow's poorest communities.

3.2 Legitimation

In this thesis, legitimation is understood to be the general social process by which certain schemas or beliefs gain widespread acceptance within society. Legitimation is crucial for the state in order to gain the consensus of the general public, whether it be to maintain the status quo or to enact policy reforms. This can have negative consequences, however, as

legitimation may also lead to the perpetuation of inefficient practices and stimulation of inequality between groups. (Johnson et al., 2006: 54)

(12)

Widespread acceptance is necessary for any policy if it is to be implemented smoothly or have any efficacy. The existence or lack of a coherent legitimising discourse that convinces the general public, those at which it is directed, or both, can contribute to the failure or success of policy reform. (Schmidt, 2002: 190) If legitimising discourse fails to convince, the general public may resist in a number of ways, such as voting for the opposition, setting up protest campaigns, or resorting to direct action. (Schmidt, 2002) This concept is useful as a way in which public compliance can be explained. According to Richard Ronald (2004: 54), housing policy has been crucial to the legitimisation of capitalism and the state (and vice versa). The creation of the “nation of homeowners” was and continues to be a central tenet of the Conservative vision of society. Housing policy can and is often used as a political tool. Neil Gray has observed that housing policy has been a tool by which to influence working class community ties and solidarity. (Gray, 2009)

The literature on legitimacy is quite extensive due to its recognition as a fundamental ingredient in social organisation. However, understanding the particularities of the process appears to be a persistent difficulty for all approaches. According to Johnson et al. (2006) while there are many variations on how to approach the issue of legitimacy, the literature can be divided into two broad groups: that which uses an institutional approach and that which uses a social psychological approach. In this thesis, both approaches can offer insight into whether Glasgow's approach to housing has gained public consensus and why. While Johnson et al. have shown that there is much overlap between the two approaches, each operate at different levels of analysis (Johnson, 2006: 61) For example, the social psychological

approach can be used to examine the legitimisation process at a group or societal level, where "newly emerging...cultural schemas about which categories of individuals are thought to be worthy or unworthy...may become widely accepted as part of the broader cultural

framework". (ibid.) This lens can be applied to the case of Glasgow, in particular the East End, where the stigmatisation of residents in economically deprived areas such as been used to justify their displacement. One of the most famous examples of this is Margaret Jaconelli. This is similar to Wacquant's argument in which he has also observed the effects of what he calls territorial stigmatisation, where particular areas are targeted by narratives of defamation. These narratives serve to devalue residents as unworthy, providing justification for their displacement.

(13)

According to Vivien Schmidt, legitimising discourse offers an explanation as to how governments can achieve change by gaining acceptance from both the public and the policy actors that will enact such change. She argues that from the late 1970s all European countries have experienced a dramatic shift towards economic liberalisation. While many have

explained the shift towards liberal economics as path dependency or as inevitable responses to modernisation, Schmidt argues that these accounts are glaringly lacking. She argues that the state's ability to communicate and rationalise reforms to the public was a crucial part of this paradigm shift, rather than just being a 'natural' process. Furthermore, she accuses historical institutionalists of conceptualising this shift as a continuity rather than as a change. Considering that many of these liberalising reforms went against the interests of large

sections of the population, and radically disintegrated established institutional structures, she argues that legitimising discourse must have been an important part of overcoming

entrenched beliefs and interests.

3.3 Stigmatisation

In their study of the role of newspapers in Glasgow, the Kearns et al. found that the predominantly negative portrayal of the housing 'schemes' (what would be called the

'projects' in the US) and the residents within played a significant role in the establishment and perpetuation of stigmatisation. The experiences documented by Kearns et al.’s article on the stigma associated with Glasgow social housing 'estates' can be theoretically understood by using Erving Goffman’s discussion of stigma, and it by this definition that stigmatisation will be understood in this thesis. In this sense, stigma is “an attribute that is deeply discrediting”, one which prevents the individual from functioning normally in society. (Kearns et al., 2012: 258) The stigmatised may experience exclusion and condemnation from others who do not share the stigma, those which Goffman calls ‘normals’. Goffman also distinguishes between the ‘discredited’, those whose stigma is known or apparent, and the ‘discreditable’, those who have been able to hide their stigma or who are not easily apparent as different. Despite being

(14)

outside of the social norm, stigmatised persons can retain the norms and attitudes of

‘normals’, creating a sense of shame and hopelessness. (Goffman, 1963: 5) I have included this explanation of stigmatisation in this section as this conceptual dichotomy of

“normal”/“not normal”, “credited”/”discredited” and “worthy”/”unworthy” individuals and communities make regular appearances in discussions of housing as I will show later.

3.4 Displacement

Another concept that will be used in this thesis is displacement. For the sake of clarity, it is useful to explain what is meant by this. Marcuse defines displacement as the following:

“Displacement occurs when any household is forced to move from its residence by conditions that affect the dwelling or its immediate surroundings, and that: 1) are beyond the household's reasonable ability to control or prevent; 2) occur despite the household's having met all the previously imposed conditions of occupancy; and 3) make continued occupancy buy that household impossible, hazardous, or

unaffordable.” (Marcuse, 1985: 205)

Furthermore, there is exclusionary displacement, which occurs when people are prevented from moving into an area or building due to gentrification, thereby being “excluded from living where [they] would have otherwise lived”. (Ibid.: 207) Gentrification can have this effect for a number of reasons: not only does the changing local housing market increase the pressure to move, but residents may also face the closing of support services and public facilities not to mention the disappearance of friends, family and preferred shops. These difficulties are common to all 'mega-events' and the Glasgow Games 2014 are no exception. (COHRE, 2007: 179) Furthermore, the dispersal of residents and the breaking up of formerly close-knit communities plays an important role in their inability to fight back against st ate-led gentrification.

(15)

4. Clarification of “Social Housing”

Finally, before I go on to discuss how the discourse around social housing shapes social policy, it is necessary first to clarify what is meant by ‘social housing’. In the UK, the terms ‘council housing’ and ‘social housing’ are often used interchangeably. However, it is

important to draw distinctions between the two terms, which have specific meanings. The reason for the confusion between the two terms is that over the past thirty years, the terms for low income housing have undergone significant changes.

From the immediate Post-War years up until the Housing Act of 1980, all social housing was directly controlled and managed by the local municipal authority, or Council, and was therefore called ‘council housing’. The Post-War context is significant, because returning soldiers demanded 'Homes Fit for Heroes' – a slogan which was part of a wider Post-War movement to create a welfare state. This movement was caused by many factors: working class people demanded better housing which was fit for the dignity of returning war veterans and their families, old housing stocks had been destroyed in the war, and middle class housing had often been low quality. This movement, combined with the Keynesian approach to economics popular at the time (which favoured state spending and state investment as a way to stimulate the economy) led to a housing boom and the increase of publicly owned housing stocks, or 'council houses'.

However, after the Housing Act (1980), the number of council housing units across the whole of the UK has consistently declined, to the point where a comparatively small number of housing is still council-owned. The city of Glasgow is unique in Scotland in that all Council owned stock was transferred en masse to housing associations, predominantly to the Glasgow Housing Association. In the national consciousness, people still think of social housing as publicly owned ‘council housing’; it is not uncommon to hear people talk about living in or applying for a 'council house', when in fact they may be talking about an

alternative form of social housing. Most housing now is provided by housing associations or other similar ‘registered social landlords’. Housing associations have until recently operated as non-profit organisations. At their inception, they were intended to function as housing

(16)

co-operatives, and there was widespread left-wing support for them, which came from a popular left-wing tradition. As such, they represented a compromise between the political left and right. For the right, they represented a positive move away from state control to third sector ownership. For many on the left, it was a positive compromise which prevented complete privatisation. However, with further deregulation in the '90s some are increasingly beginning to function more like commercial enterprises and despite being publicly subsidised, have adopted the practices and outlook of for-profit organisations. (Milton, 2009: 116) An example of a housing association which has been behaving in such a way is the Glasgow Housing Association, which is the biggest housing organisation of its kind in Europe. While housing associations are publicly subsidised, they have a greater degree of control over who they will admit and under what conditions. This has created a kind of hierarchy in which marginal or undesirable tenants may find it difficult to secure a place, (leading to the ghettoisation of certain groups in the poorly maintained council flats that remain). The commercialisation of housing associations (in particular the GHA) has caused concern among residents who say that they are increasingly voiceless in their housing association's day to day decision-making process. (Glasgow Tenants and Residents Network, 2012)

The main point that I wish to make here is that it is important to keep in mind that ‘social housing’ remains a fuzzy term and serves to obscure the line between private and public. For the last couple of decades, 'affordable housing' has also been a popular phrase among policy-makers and property developers for the same reason. 'Affordable housing' is often used in the same breath as 'social housing' in development and regeneration reports and documents, making the number and tenure of homes to be built or demolished, for who and for what purpose, unclear.

5. Historical Context

In 1980 the Thatcher government implemented the Housing Act, which has since been considered a major turning point in both British politics and the UK's housing market. It has also affected how people conceptualise both public housing as a concept and how people

(17)

who live in public housing are perceived in society. The most famous part of the Act was what became known as 'Right to Buy' , which allowed council house tenants the legal right to buy their publicly owned homes. Previously, tenants were required to get permission from the local council, which was a difficult process that took several years. It was also more

expensive. Before the Act was passed, the council could choose not to sell a council house if they wanted to protect the stock of publicly owned housing. After the Act was passed, the council no longer had a choice in the matter. This meant that the stocks of publicly owned houses were depleted. It was no longer common to live in public or ‘council’ housing. Recently, legislation has been passed by the Scottish Government to limit the effect of Right To Buy, and to preserve existing publicly owned housing stock. The Scottish government (currently led by the SNP, or Scottish National Party) has tried to distance itself from Thatcherism, which is widely unpopular in Scotland.

While Scotland perceives itself to be ideologically different, and a place where privatisation is less common, many of the same things which are happening in England are also happening in Scotland. However, by this point, the majority of council-owned housing has already been lost. Despite discursive themes such as the undeserving poor, self-reliance and home-ownership continue to influence. In this section, I will provide a brief account of the historical context within which current discourse resides. I will argue that in order for redevelopment projects such as the Clyde Gateway to be justified to the public, the following two discourses can be observed: A discourse of decline and a discourse of regeneration. These discourses can provide a powerful justification for both the displacement of lower income social housing residents, and has a powerful legitimising effect on the privatisation of housing stock. It also leads to the gentrification of the targeted areas.

In my case study of Glasgow, local resistance by residents is present. However, it has so far failed to be effective. The existence of resistance implies that there is an opposing discourse. The implication of this is that many residents have not found narratives of regeneration and the 'Legacy' of the Games convincing once faced with intrusions into their own lives. However, the fact that this resistance fails to reach a wide audience or to achieve its goals is a good example of how one particular discourse can gain hegemony.

(18)

6. Frontier Discourses of Decline and Regeneration

The case of Glasgow and the Clyde Gateway Project embodies both a ‘discourse of decline’ as coined by Robert Beauregard, but also a discourse of ‘urban renewal’. For Neil Smith, both discourses are distinctly 'frontier' in flavour, invoking a 'wild west' sense of wilderness and opportunity. Frontier discourses have the ability to "rationalise and legitimate a process of conquest, whether in the eighteenth century American West, or in the late-twentieth inner city". (Smith, 1996: 190) In this section I will show how frontier discourses may be applied to the regeneration of the East End of Glasgow and how they may influence the way social housing is conceptualised and help to legitimise policy affecting residents of social housing. I will first introduce the idea of “a property-owning democracy” which was championed by the Conservative UK government in the 1980s, which represents a significant ideological shift in how housing was thought about both within Scotland and in the UK as a whole. I argue that many assumptions within current policy and public perception can be traced back to this concept of a “nation of home-owners”. I will then go on to show how “discourses of decline” and “discourses of renewal” combine into a “frontier” meta-narrative and how these apply to the case study of Glasgow.

Just as, during colonisation, the 'wild west' was conceptualised as a place in which savagery was overcome by the advent of Europeans, a similar conceptualisation of 'slums' has been applied to modern cities. In 19th century America, this discourse served as an alibi for European colonization and the displacement of the indigenous inhabitants. According to Neil Smith, similar narratives and symbolism are present in the gentrification of the modern city. This conceptualisation included two narratives: one in which original inhabitants were either expected to leave as part of the inevitable march of modernity, or, in the other, to be

(19)

discourses' provide a rationale for the displacement of local people through land grabs and other 'civilising' techniques.

While Smith focuses on US cities, this argument can similarly be applied to the East End of Glasgow, where both economic development and cultural development projects have been pushed on the area as a way to 'tame' undesirable and dangerous spaces. News coverage of the area has contributed to its notoriety as a place of poverty, crime and third world level life expectancies. (Kearns et al., 2013) Around the world, the city has become known for its astonishingly high mortality rates – also known as the “Glasgow Effect”.

These problems are most often framed in a way that places responsibility onto the “dependent” individual or local community more than on larger forces, such as global or national forces. As Paton et al. have pointed out, “Not only is this highly questionable in a climate of public sector cuts and high unemployment, such thinking neglects the structural inequalities facing East Enders in their attempts to become "consumer -citizens"”. (Paton et al, 2012: 1480) It is not uncommon for t housing tenants to be spoken of as housing

consumers, which alienates many of the longterm residents, who are facing pressures to leave. Framing tenants as housing consumers suggests that the right to place is based on their ability to consume, rather than being based on membership in a community or their personal ties to a place. In Glasgow's 'Legacy', the homeless are expected to buy homes they cannot afford or which do not exist, and get jobs that do not exist. Good housing consumption

related to good citizenship. (Porter, 2009: 397) It can be argued that normalising discourses of home ownership have a disciplinary power that compels individuals to become consumers within the housing market. The narrative of social renters as being 'unnatural' contributes to their stigmatisation as 'problematic citizens'.

It is undeniable that these areas are in need of development and improvement, and that people genuinely do suffer from social problems. However, implicit within the discourse of both economic development and even cultural development is always the assumption that the solution is to introduce something external - whether it be external people, external businesses, and external culture. It is always an external element which must be introduced, like a missionary force. The cumulative implication of all of these 'interventions' is that, like in the 'wild west', this capture of space is not for the benefit of the people living there, but for new 'colonisers'. Rather than investing in local businesses, local businesses are squeezed out

(20)

to make room for larger external businesses. For example, in one newspaper on Clyde Gateway’s activities in the area, a local resident was quoted as saying,

"This place has had its heart ripped out...we used to have a cafe and a chemist, two newsagents and a chip shop, but all that's been flattened. They took away our high street, leaving us without any amenities for the last three years, and what have we got to show for it?" (The Guardian, Oliver Wainwright, March 3, 2014)

(21)

6.1 A Property Owning Democracy

There can be no denying the popularity of Right to Buy at the time at which the Housing Act was introduced in 1980. At a time when approximately two thirds of housing was publicly owned, for many people the Right to Buy policy meant the chance to finally own a home of their own, in a context where conventional council housing was becoming increasing unpopular. This also represented a transfer of wealth from the state to people with low incomes. Furthermore, it is worth noting that at that time, council houses were of relatively high quality and were available in a variety of styles. The unfortunate consequence of the stock transfer from the state, however, was that it led to the housing crisis. At the time that the Act was passed, the nature of council housing was very different than today. Now, the

majority of tenants are ghettoised into 'estates'. Roughly two thirds of people in social

housing are unemployed or on benefits, whereas before Thatcher came into power, more than a third of people in social housing were on above-average incomes. In other words, social housing went from consisting of a diverse array of people to consisting of communities of concentrated poverty. In this section, I will discuss the way in which the framing of social housing and owner occupation has changed, and the role that this plays in legitimising policy.

After the Housing Act came into effect, local councils were not legally able to replenish their depleted stocks of property, and demand for social housing began to outstrip supply. (Milton 2009:115) Shelter Scotland, the homelessness charity, has reported that after 30 years, the majority of Right to Buy homes have ended up in the hands of landlords, and not owner-occupiers. In this sense, the policy has been a failure in achieving a 'nation of home owners. Many commentators have noted that the UK has in fact become a nation of renters such as the BBC, who reported that “A study from the Halifax Bank found that new schemes designed to help people get on the housing ladder have done little to improve the prospects of under 45s buying their own home.”(BBC, 18/4/14) They go on to lament the tragedy that,

(22)

“Many young people are struggling to get on the property ladder, and new figures this morning from Halifax suggest that one in five young people have now given up entirely on the idea of ever owning their own home. They're consigned to the fact that they may have to rent now for the rest of their lives.” (ibid.)

This quote makes clear that owning one's own home is seen as normative and profoundly meaningful: being unable to step onto a 'ladder' represents exclusion from an ideal and normative concept of citizenship, and implies that instead of being able to progress up a ladder, one is trapped at the bottom of society's housing.

Nevertheless, the 1980 Housing Act has had a profound effect on the path that housing discourses and policies have taken and it is a testament to the hegemonic power of Thatcherism and Right to Buy that its effects are still very much felt. Today in Scotland, the policy has gained a degree of symbolic significance across the political spectrum. For those on the right, the Right to Buy symbolises civil rights, individual rights, and democracy. “The key assumptions in Anglo-Saxon home owner societies concern the role of ‘property owning democracy’ in providing political legitimacy, support of the political right, and resistance to ‘Bolshevism’ and collectivism.” (Ronald 2004: 58) For those on the left, it represents an attack on the working class and a defeat of socialist values.

For many in the UK, Thatcher's vision for social housing was quite an ideological shift. Not only was it necessary to convince the public of these changes but it was also necessary to disseminate this logic to political actors too. Housing Associations are publicly funded yet independently run 'registered social landlords' that provide low income housing. Compared to Council Houses which are directly run and funded by the local authority, Housing Associations have a much greater control over their affairs and in theory are non-profit organisations, although some such as the Glasgow Housing Association have increasingly adopted the practices of a private business. (Glynn, 2012) An interesting comparison to be made is the way in which the introduction of Housing Associations were discussed by both Labour and the Conservatives. Indeed both sides were able to effectively communicate the necessity of the same policy through opposing ideological lenses. In a 1981

(23)

document produced by Labour, it is argued that housing provision should be devolved from council control to independent housing cooperatives where the "co-operative's property is collectively owned by its members but they have no individual stake" (Allaun et al, in Collins & Jones, 2006:55) The authors of the document very clearly see the move away from

conventional Council housing not as a move towards privatisation but instead a "vital process of renewal in British socialism" in response to the existing centralised, bureaucratic nature of the welfare state. (ibid.) In Scotland, stock transfer was seen as “an attempt to regenerate small, run-down pockets of council housing through ‘community ownership’” (McKee, 2009: 17) While some have come to view Labour's participation in the move towards Housing Associations as a betrayal, in the 1970s, the Housing Association movement was distinctly anti-Thatcher, having emerged from the 1960s squatting scene. In other words, the

movement was not simply about the privatisation of the sector as it had proponents from both sides. For Conservatives, however, the move represented a break away from centralised, bureaucratic control and an opportunity to . The policy was highly symbolic to both sides of the political debate. The significance of this is that the policy is ideologically neutral; the narrative surrounding the policy can often be more important than the policy itself. Narratives and discourses can play a huge role in the way in which issues are perceived. (Milton 2009: 116)

One effective and quite common narrative is that of mixed or diversified tenure. This perspective is similar to Matthew's pathologising discourse in that its focus is at the micro-level. At its base is the assumption of a "culture of dependence". These poverty 'wildlands' can be confronted through the injection of "worthy"(er) residents: "Key Workers" for the local hospital for example, or students, who act as 'colonists' or 'missionaries' in the

regenerative efforts of the city. Statements by private companies, government documents and media articles all feature language of the reclamation of the East End from the 'cycle of poverty'. The ultimate ideal citizen within this narrative is that of the owner-occupier, who represents the citizen-consumer independent of the state or public services. The framing of home ownership as 'normal' contributes to the marginalisation of those living in social housing, which is seen as an existence of dependence. (Nelson, 2008)

In both regeneration and housing documents, dependence on the state is a persistent negative theme. There is the assumption throughout that home-ownership is the most

(24)

desirable form of tenureship. This narrative is in opposition to a former notion of council, or socially rented, homes being normal. As Gurney argues, despite a high degree of interest among the general public in Right to Buy and the Act as a whole, it was still necessary for this narrative of home-ownership to undergo a process of normalisation. This process saw a discursive reframing of owner-occupation from being the sole domain of the middle-class to being not only within the grasp of working class and lower middle class households but also a moral imperative. This new 'norm' in housing consumption practices problematised the concept of social housing, resulting in the reframing of entire communities of working people as 'unworthy'. These discursive practices not only normalise owner-occupation as a preferable form of consumption over others, but also subjects individuals in social rent to “disciplinary techniques of normalising judgement” (Gurney, 1999: 164) The significance of this is that social housing underwent a profound change in the way it was conceived by the general public; not only did the 'schemes', 'estates' and 'towers' gain negative connotations, but the people within them became stigmatised. (Kearns et al., 2013)

In this quote from the GHA’s Executive Director of Development and Regeneration, attention is diverted away from the housing association's responsibility for providing an adequate amount of homes that are affordable for low-income households:

"We are determined at GHA to help increase the number of housing options people have in the city. Not everyone can buy in the current market and our research shows there is strong demand for homes with mid market rents. That’s particularly true in Greater Govan where regeneration is bringing a lot of people into the area to work." (GHA, 2011)

The above quote is an example of a narrative in which private renting is preferred over the use of social housing. The narrative expressed by this quote perceives it to be both natural and beneficial that the Glasgow Housing Association, a publicly subsidised provider of low-income housing, is participating in the creation of private, midmarket accommodation.

(25)

A significant event in the history of social housing in Glasgow has been the wholesale sell-off of council stock to the Glasgow Housing Association. Stock transfer refers to the sale of publicly owned housing to third sector housing associations and was a transition that occurred roughly around the same time throughout the UK. The policy in Scotland has differed however from that carried out in England. According to McKee, stock transfer originated as a local initiative that was later adopted into central government policy. (McKee, 2009:17) Stock transfer has had a profound effect on housing in Scotland. In just the last ten years, for example, the number of council owned units has halved. Under the guise of "community ownership" (a phrase that began to occur with increasing frequency from the early 90s). Stock transfer took off after devolution in 1997 particularly in Labour strongholds such as Glasgow as a way for local authorities to acquire both private and public investment into social housing. While the widespread adoption of the policy in Scotland was successful, an increasing number of tenants resisted the policy, in particular in Edinburgh and Stirling. A discourse of 'community ownership' was an important political tool to legitimise the

transition. 'Community ownership' can be interpreted in many ways, however. For many Labour councils, it meant a shift away from central bureaucracy to community-based housing associations which allow tenants more control over their accommodation. From another perspective, such as Matthews' (2010), 'community ownership' can be interpreted as a pathologising discourse which places the burden of responsibility for the welfare of tenants away from state authority and onto the local community.

6. 2 A Discourse of Decline

In this section I will explore the discursive representation of poor communities, and the East End, as places of decline, and the significance this has on both the legitimisation of

privatisation and the stigmatisation of poor communities. A ‘discourse of decline’ (Beauregard, 2003) is a discursive tool which can be used in order to reorient the way in which society thinks about “such critical issues as the economic life of buildings, the priority given to different components of value, the sources of devaluation, and interrelationships between buildings and neighbourhoods” (Weber, 2002, p. 177). This discourse is central to an

(26)

understanding of the rhetoric which privatisation revolves around. A ‘discourse of decline’ and a ‘discourse of regeneration’ are the two major discursive tools which privatisation uses in order to legitimise itself and achieve broad consensus. One of the major factors in the ‘discourse of decline’ is stigmatisation of the residents themselves, who become associated with antisocial behaviour, poverty, drinking and substance abuse. A common theme is the comparison of the East End of Glasgow with third world countries, illustrated by this headline run by the Guardian: “In Iraq, life expectancy is 67. Minutes from Glasgow city centre, it's 54” (Gillan, 2006) This headline draws its shock value not only by comparing Glasgow to a war zone, but through its implication that Glasgow is almost another world - the article goes on to point out the 'unworthy' and problematic behaviour and values of the

interviewees.

In the following quote from another magazine, this time on the conservative side of the political spectrum, the same social and economic problems are presented as a product of social housing, and the New Labour welfare state in general:

“Gang graffiti scars the walls, police are virtually unseen. This no-go-zone status is new, and cost billions to achieve. Houses there are in good condition, money is being spent. But it has funded a hideous social experiment, showing what happens when the horizontal ties which bind those within communities to one another are replaced with vertical ties, binding individuals to the welfare state.” (Nelson in The Spectator, 2008)

This article takes an unusual stance when it describes the housing in the most deprived areas of Scotland as being in good condition. His point is that it is not the housing which creates social problems, but the unnatural state of renting social housing rather than owning property – a state that places the individual in a position of unending dependence. The author of this article is clearly an advocate of the Thatcherite view of social housing. From this perspective, the root cause of the “Glasgow Effect” in the East End is due to the community's use of social housing, implying that social housing is inherently immoral and hinders people's ability to be 'good citizens', as well as eroding the possibility for individuals to become independent consumer-citizens - the implication being that property ownership is normal, and that other non-private forms of tenureship are not.

(27)

Another interesting point to be made about this article is that contrary to many similar articles the author places the burden of responsibility more on the state (in this case, the former Labour government) rather than on the individuals involved. Although these are social problems which many residents do have, these are treated as if these problems are linked to or even caused by the geographical area or the housing system, rather than as socially constructed problems. (Kearns et al., 2013: 593) For example, drug abuse and addiction are undeniably linked to poverty and alienation. (Singleton, 2011) Negative coverage of areas with high degrees of social housing by newspapers often focuses on the poor living conditions and poor environment in the flats.

Another major factor in this narrative is ‘urban blight’, a narrative of urban degradation and decline. In an extensive study by Swyngedouw et al. (2004) throughout Western Europe, urban development projects are almost always state-led and publicly subsidised, or even completely state-funded. Often what this means is that public taxpayer money will be invested at high risk, with no guarantee of good returns, to the benefit of private interests. These regeneration projects are often pushed through surrounded by a discourse of blight. Blight is a vague term, but it is evocative of substandard living conditions – the word's original meaning indicates that something is spoiled, damaged, or diseased. A consistent characteristic, however, is that regeneration projects are usually accompanied by social exclusion and marginalisation, regardless of the rhetoric of 'health and safety' or 'community benefits'. ‘Urban blight’ and ‘urban decline’ in particular low income areas are widely perceived to be a natural occurrence. For example, in an article about the impending demolition of the notorious Red Road flats, Owen Duffy from The Guardian wrote,

“Built in the 1960s to alleviate squalid living conditions and overcrowding in the city's slums, the Red Road flats were designed to house almost 5,000 people. But the buildings fell into decline over the decades, becoming synonymous with crime and urban decay.” (Duffy, 2014)

This short passage carries the implication that ‘urban decay’ is a natural process. Duffy says that the buildings “fell into” decline, in the same way that an elderly person might “fall into”

(28)

ill-health. However, many have written about the deliberate neglect of social housing.

Neglect has constituted, for example, a failure to re-clad towers, a relatively inexpensive and simple process which must be done on a regular basis in the damp Scottish climate in order to prevent the structure of the building from being damaged, as well as the failure to properly remove asbestos, fix leaks, and to perform other general maintenance tasks. (Glynn, 2012) In addition, residents I interviewed in Bridgeton claimed that public funds earmarked for upkeep were misused and that money allocated for maintenance would disappear, or maintenance tasks which were carried out were not done properly or did not meet the needs of the community – for example, superficial improvements such as the replacement of lawns with astroturf. As pointed out in an interview by the blog “Failed Architecture” about claims of structural dilapidation and urban blight,

“That is too easy an excuse to be made and is the frequent first response from the

councils and housing officials. Many of the high rise flats had nothing wrong with them structurally, the issues were all of social decline and bad management. High rise living in other cities across the world is seen as the norm, but in Glasgow its very much tainted.” (Minkjan, 2013)

Therefore, both perception of 'decline' and the actual physical neglect of buildings can be intentional. What may appear to be 'inevitable' decline can in reality be deliberate. The way in which we think about space is not neutral, but is rather embedded in a political, economic and social context. In Aalber's paper, “Do Maps Make Geography?”, he looks at the ways in which maps contribute to the 'hierarchicalisation' of space . The hierarchalisation of space occurs when some spaces in an area or city are deemed more important than others. This is an important concept when considering the case of Glasgow because it contributes to the perception of certain areas or communities as being more or less 'worthy' than others. This may be invisible and not readily apparent, but it is significant because helps us see the power relations and mechanisms behind seemingly neutral developments.

“For Foucault, systems of domination include not only the formal apparatus of the state, but also academic and applied fields of knowledge. This comes close to Gramsci's notion of hegemony, as he proposes that 'elites [and states] exercise political domination not only through direct coercion and control of resources, but

(29)

also through the establishment of ideologies that legitimate their role'.” (Aalbers, 2014: 5)

As Sarah Glynn (2012) explains in her research on deliberate decline in Dundee, housing authorities and local councils will prefer to spend more money on demolition rather than simple upkeep. This neglect in turn justifies demolition, and allows social housing providers and local councils to profit by removing residents and selling the property to private

developers:

“...the unpopularity of an area or a building is generally unrelated to the structure of the building itself, and more often due to a range of local, regional and national social and economic issues. Demolition does not address these issues; it just moves problems into different areas. And, of course, if housing is allowed to run down it will become less popular; while, conversely, demand for a house, as for any other product, will go up if that house is improved.” (Glynn, 2012: no page number)

This is happening in a context in which council are underfunded, and have a limited ability to properly maintain housing stocks. Social housing and low income areas have been deliberately starved of funds. After the 1980s Housing Act, councils found it increasingly difficult to maintain buildings, largely in part to large-scale funding cuts. This has functioned as a mechanism to encourage stock transfer from public ownership to private ownership by placing financial pressure on local authorities. As housing associations become more and more deregulated, they have more freedom to act as commercial enterprises. Due to the increasing shift towards neoliberalism, the provision of socially rented, low-income housing is becoming seen as less of a priority. The recession has exacerbated this problem, while also, ironically, causing an increase in demand for social housing.

According to Inside Housing, the Scottish Government housing subsidy was almost halved in 2007. Housing associations are increasingly expected to generate their own money, encouraging them to act more like commercial enterprises. Housing associations themselves now have the power to go into partnership with private property developers and housing providers. This means that there is a financial incentive for housing associations, who were originally non-profit, to remove the low-income households whose interests they are meant to

(30)

serve. Despite what many researchers and critics have observed as deliberate neglect or decline, when issues surrounding the housing crisis do often come up in the mainstream media, they are often reported as inevitable, natural occurrences. This tone is echoed by the Glasgow City Council and the GHA, such as in the following quote from Councillor Gordon Matheson who said of the Red Road high-rise flats:

“Their demolition will all but mark the end of high-rise living in the area and is symbolic of the changing face of Glasgow, not least in terms of our preparations for the Games”.

The Chairman of the GHA is also quoted as saying,

“The Red Road flats were very popular in their day and hold a special place in many people’s hearts. But they are just no longer viable as modern homes and GHA made the decision to demolish them as part of the wider regeneration of the north of Glasgow.” (Glasgow 2014 website)

These quotes show how, although these tower blocks were built with a sense of hope and modernity, they are now referred to as being relics of the past which have no place in modern Glasgow. In fact, not only do these buildings not belong in a modern Glasgow, but it is impossible for Glasgow to become a modern city as long as these buildings exist – they are a danger to progress. This narrative of inevitable decline and regeneration helps to justify and legitimise the demolition of the homes of thousands of people, many of whom have not been provided with alternative accommodation or compensation. Interestingly, of the original eight tower blocks, only one has been withheld from demolition. According to local newspapers, the remaining GHA-owned tower is intended specifically for refugees (at least until 2017), adding to the aura of deprivation and the impression that the former modernist Red Road was a place that was unfit for all but the most desperate in society. (Mooney, 2014: no page number)

Another theme within discourses of decline is what Matthews would call “Pathological Discourses”. Pathological Discourses are discourses in which communities are framed as 'bad' or 'unworthy', and which often blame members of this community for any problems

(31)

which may exist within that community. These discourses are often present in the framing of policy, such as social housing, and are directed towards communities with high levels of poverty and urban decline. This discourse is interesting, as it is found in the policy

approaches of both the Conservative and New Labour governments. According to Matthews (2010: 222), this perspective tends to result in "inward-looking" responses such as local community centres, which may improve the lives of individuals but generally fail to address the socio-economic inequality that is bound to city-, national-, and global-level forces. What Matthews observes as the pathological discourse fits into a grander discourse of 'decline', which continues to influence housing policy over time throughout the UK.

After a brief period in the 1970s in which policy increasingly recognized the role of wider socio-economic forces in urban decline, pathological approaches made a comeback with the advent of neo-liberalism in the form of 'New Life for Urban Scotland' (1988). As Matthews points out, "This policy has been seen as one of the most important urban regeneration policies in Scotland, and perhaps the UK, for framing subsequent policy approaches to regeneration. " The 'New Life' policy was strongly based upon Thatcherism and the premise that state dependence impedes the well-being of individuals and communities. This

'pathological' framing of the problem both resulted in and legitimised the shift towards reliance on the private sector.

One example of the Scottish Government addressing this problem is the policy "Better Communities in Scotland: Closing the Gap" which shifted responsibility for regeneration projects from the community to the city-wide level. This represents a small shift away from the 'pathological' approach which holds local communities and individuals responsible for their socio-economic problems. The fact that the Scottish Government attempted to address this problem shows that the Government was attempting to take a more sympathetic view of poverty-ridden areas, and to shift the burden of responsibility slightly away from these communities themselves – at least in their rhetoric. According to Matthews, however, 'pathological discourse' continues where,

"The continued use of the grand, pathologizing discourse reflects the strategic use of language by policy makers, particularly to shift the burden of improvement away

(32)

from the...included..., to the communities that are the subject of the policy itself." (Matthews, 2010: 222)

Even though there was some improvement, the language of 'pathological discourse' still persists. For example, the onus of getting a job still rests on the individual. This can be seen by the focus on volunteering in the 'Legacy' of the games. From an alternative perspective, it could be the responsibility of the government to stimulate jobs. This is, in fact, what the Scottish Government is attempting to do when contributing funding to projects like the Games. However, in effect, the hoped-for effects do not materialise on the ground. (Glasgow Games Monitor, 2014) Development projects such as the Glasgow gateway, as well as the Games themselves, receive enormous public funding from both local authorities and from the Scottish government itself, with the expectation that these projects will pump employment into the area and benefit local people.

However, in the Glasgow Games, local residents' groups have complained that many of the jobs are temporary and are out of the skill range of most people. An example of this would be 'culture' jobs – in an area where many are manufacturers and builders. Other jobs are unpaid “work experience”. Many residents have accused the Glasgow Games and the Clyde

Gateway Development as using arbitrary or inaccurate numbers when describing their contribution to local employment. Very few of the jobs that are promised appear, and those that do are temporary and only exist during the time that the Games are happening. Much of the work that was expected to be created for the Games, at least in terms of tourism and culture, has been given to unpaid volunteers.

The use of volunteer work reflects the fact that employment is seen as the responsibility of the individual – volunteer work is not seen as exploitation, but rather as 'work experience' for another job which has yet to appear. As a consequence, a lot of young people leave the area, which results in a population gap and contributes to the decline of the community. This is interesting, because it is not a rural village which young people are leaving in order to seek jobs in a city, but a central location in the city. The result of young people leaving the area makes the area ripe for development and gentrification.

(33)

Negative effects of the Games are omitted or are obfuscated through a discourse of regeneration, or are simply omitted from official documents. This contributes to a sense of consensus. As Matthews argues,

"In policy discourses what is most important about the concept is the ability to use its inherent complexity to hide causation and place blame for social outcomes onto those in society who are experiencing social exclusion. The structural inequalities that cause poverty are then obscured in policy debate, removing wealth redistribution as a viable policy option." (Matthews, 226)

The regeneration aims of the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow can be directly compared to the 2012 London Olympics, whose Organising Committees have formally collaborated in many respects. The language used to promote the Games to Glasgow residents is strikingly similar to that of the London Olympics (and indeed Olympics around the world). In one press statement it is promised that,

“Up to 12,000 new jobs will be created in the Park alone. The Olympic Village, where the athletes will stay during the Games, will be converted into apartments, many available for key workers such as teachers and nurses. In all, 9,000 new homes will be built within the Park. Many of the facilities in the Park will remain for use by local communities. The Park will significantly contribute to the regeneration and development of east London and the wider Thames Gateway” (quoted in COHRE, 2011:179)

In a similar quote,

“...the Games are now ushering in a new era in developing infrastructure, housing and sporting facilities all over the city.... The focus for these developments can be found in the East End of Glasgow, with the building of one of Europe's biggest indoor

(34)

facilities and the Athletes' Village, home to more than 6,500 competitors and officials in 2014 and a new neighbourhood of more than 1400 socially-rented and private homes in the years after the Games.

In both cases, there is very little mention on the inevitability of displacement of local and often vulnerable people. One such case is the Accord Resource Centre in Dalmarnock which was demolished in order to create a coach park for the Emirates Stadium, despite early promises that the Centre would be replaced with a new £200,000 purpose built centre, the facility has failed to materialise.

6.3 A Discourse of Renewal

“In the Glasgow media the death of a high rise is marketed as progress, its time had come: no other alternative. Anything else that ‘saved’ the buildings could look as a form of guilt or

failure first time round.” - Minkjan, 2013

Finally, one of the most powerful discourses in the legitimisation of housing policy and the privatisation of social housing are 'discourses of renewal'. In this section I will discuss how the renewal of places and communities suffering from decline and neglect are framed as inevitably dependent on state-subsidised privatisation. The positive connotations attached to state-subsidised privatisation in turn legitimises development projects regardless of the long-term effect on the area and the local community. The most obvious example of this is the phrase “development & regeneration”.

One consistent theme of the privatising discourse of regeneration is the implication that there is no alternative. In fact, “there is no alternative” became a defining catchphrase of 1980s neoliberalism – a sentiment that appears to have continued. In 2011, for example, the GHA

(35)

released a press statement in which the Glasgow Housing Association's Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment is quoted as saying,

"With the public purse under huge financial strain we need radical and innovative approaches to increase housing supply at maximum value for taxpayers' money. We called for fresh thinking and new ideas and in response councils, housing associations and private developers have risen to the challenge magnificently.” (GHA, 2011)

The "radical and innovative" solution in this case was the publicly funded demolition of two social housing blocks and the conversion of a third into for-profit flats for "young

professionals and key workers". (GHA 2011) This move was funded by a £7 million investment from the Scottish Government. Despite the fact that the buildings were in good condition, the demolition has been portrayed as a common-sense solution. The GHA goes on to mention that "We will be able to provide some of the longer-term tenants with the

opportunity to progress to home ownership further down the line." (ibid.) These statements from the Glasgow Housing Association on the redevelopment of the Ibroxholm flats are representative of other publicly funded “regeneration” projects across the city.

Three things in particular can be gleaned from the above quotes. The first is the focus on young professionals and “key workers” (in this case, healthcare workers for the nearby hospital). The Glasgow city council is also currently in partnership with private developers. Glasgow city council, Glasgow Housing Association, and private developers such as Clyde Gateway Ltd., are currently in the process of introducing tens of thousands of units of student accommodation. I would argue that this is not an effective way to regenerate the local

community; in terms of regeneration of the local community, students represent both an external and impermanent population, and so contribute to the gentrification and

displacement in the area. State-funded introduction of new residents and the forced displacement of former social housing residents are communicated as a common-sense strategy for the improvement of the area. The implication of this is that development is not for the benefit of the long-term residents, many of whom are in social housing, but the

(36)

‘pioneers’, and business interests. This relates to the 'frontier' discourse which was discussed earlier in this thesis.

Although there is much lip service paid to the long-term benefits of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games and the related “legacy” of regeneration to the resident community, advertising surrounding the development of the East End is geared towards those living elsewhere in the city, with the goal of luring a more ‘hip’ demographic. One such pioneer outpost that has been planted in the East End is the Drygate Brewery, the “UK's first craft experiential brewery” that promises to help the regeneration of Duke Street with the creation of sixteen jobs. Despite being a joint venture with the C&C Group – owner of the largest lager brand in the country – the brewery is still partially funded by the Scottish Government through a 'regional selective assistance grant'. (McCulloch, 22 May '14) While local

amenities and high street local businesses have been squeezed out, the popping-up of “New East End” ventures is significant in that it indicates for whom regeneration is for.

The second thing to note is that not only are long-term residents expected to become property owners if they are to remain in the area, but it is assumed that home ownership is the most desirable outcome. In his article, Gurney shows that the idea of property ownership as the most desirable system is a social construct. The normalisation of property ownership has been cultivated through privatising discourse. This discourse creates a social perception which implies that there is no alternative. When privatisation discourses cultivate the expectation of home ownership to be both desirable and normal, then a side effect of this discourse is that social housing come to be perceived as a ‘last resort’ for those who are unemployed or those who are otherwise ‘high needs’ and marginal.

Another recurring theme that is present in the press release is the use of the term “affordable housing”. Glynn (2012), Collins (2006) and Gray (2011) have all observed that ‘social housing’ has been used as a vague umbrella term which allows for the lines to be blurred between publicly owned housing and privately owned subsidised housing, such as Housing Associations and other registered social landlords. In a similar way, ‘affordable housing’ is used as an umbrella term to blur the distinction between public and private

ownership. This phrase is present in almost all the articles I have found on the privatisation of both Council and Glasgow Housing Association flats. The irony is that often these new “economical” apartments are aimed at the middle-market. In the case of Ibroxholme for

The role of discourse in the legitimation of housing policy