Don't be fooled by the council's propaganda

We know that some tenants and councillors are under the impression that we should all vote yes to the housing transfer, but it strikes us as a bit odd that there is so much money being spent on this transfer. We have been bombarded with leaflets, videos, letters, newspaper articles and even had cards left by repairmen at the request of the council, all to persuade us to vote yes!

If you look at the approximate cost of this campaign, ie looking at the Stroud District Council calendar to get approximate housing figures, it states that in 2002 there were 5,503 properties owned by the council. Assuming there are still approximately 5,500 properties, at a cost (and I would guess this is underestimated) of £5 per property for all this propaganda, then the council to date have spent at least £27,500 on advertising, videos, glossy booklets etc, etc.

So who is paying for all this? The council taxpayer? Probably! Now in our opinion that money would have been much better spent on repairs, especially as the council is so strapped for cash that it would appear to be determined to sell us all out to this Hill and Vale Housing.

Surely by now the issue should be left to the people to decide, without it being rammed down our throats right, left and centre that we will be so much better off under this new scheme. To us is smacks of privatisation, and to date there are very few things that have been previously government-run that seem to do well after privatisation, in fact aren't there some considerations being made as to the government buying back some of the privatised companies as they are running at a loss?

So what will happen if Hill and Vale run at a loss? Do the council then buy the houses back - at a profit to Hill and Vale? OK, we can hear the die-hards shouting "No they won't run at a loss, they will be successful, we will have better houses, repairs etc." There is no way to guarantee that this new project will be any more successful than the council have been, yet they will have more money, to start with. But who is to say there won't be a U-turn, as governments have been known to do, with their policies, leaving them strapped for cash also! Then were will we all be?

I personally (Ronni Sloan) have been a non-council tenant and it is not all it is being glossed up to be. And for those who say "But this is different, this will not be a housing association" I say don't even go there, the whole concept of housing benefits, help with occupational therapists and other council house benefits change once the tenant is no longer a council tenant. And that is a fact, ask anyone who is not a council house tenant (if you are allowed to that is). This is beginning to feel like there are attempts to brainwash anyone who is not strong willed enough to stand up and say 'No I am not voting for this change over, I want to stay as a council tenant'.

In the letter in the Gazette a reference is made to the "Tenants leading the 'vote no' campaign both living in the newest council houses in the district". Well, we also live in fairly new council houses, with new kitchens, new bathrooms and secure front doors! We didn't mention back doors because there are some problems with our back doors and we wonder just how secure the back doors are for these two people concerned as the council tend to use the same doors for all their new buildings! However the point being that even if we lived in the poorest conditions we would still urge the people of the district to vote no and for goodness sake remember that a vote that is not used can and most probably will be construed as a yes vote. So please vote and vote no to this change over.

As I (Ronni Sloan) have said in a previous letter to the Gazette, they will try again in a few years anyway and if the council really don't have the money and if the government really won't help out the council (which we don't believe anyway), then we can vote yes then, but for now and for our homes, vote no, no, no.

Ronni Sloan and Mary Wood, Woodfield, Cam