Profits before workers’ needs¶
Core Argument¶
Here, the chapter presents a detailed case study of the class dynamics of housing under a Labour government, using the specific example of the Duchess of Bedford Flats in Kensington. The core argument is that the post-war Labour government, despite its electoral mandate from the working class, acted as a faithful administrator of capitalist property relations, prioritising the profits of landlords over the urgent needs of homeless workers. The narrative thrust contrasts the government’s inaction on requisitioning luxury housing with its swift, punitive action against those who took matters into their own hands.
The key claim is that the Tory-dominated Kensington Borough Council, with the tacit consent of the Labour government, returned the flats to the Prudential Assurance Company so they could be let at exorbitant rates (10 to 15 guineas per week) rather than used to house families in desperate need. The evidence is stark: a woman reported taking her children to hospital fifty times in a year for rat bites and illness caused by appalling housing conditions, while others described leaking roofs and overflowing lavatories. The chapter notes that the judge expressed “deep sympathy” for these conditions but ultimately ruled in favour of private property, branding the homeless workers “trespassers.” This is presented as a damning indictment of the legal system’s subordination to capitalist interests.
The historical context is the immediate post-war period, when a Labour government had been swept to power on a wave of working-class expectation for radical change. The chapter argues that this government betrayed that mandate by using “Tory methods” to evict workers and protect landlords. The polemic is directed squarely at the Labour government, accusing it of “lick-spittling to the capitalist tradition” and covering its betrayal with accusations of “agitators” and “anarchy” against the squatters and their Communist Party leaders. The arrest of five Communist Party members is framed as an attempt to break the squatters’ determination. The chapter concludes with a call to action: workers must rally to support the squatters and demand the withdrawal of charges, framing the squatting movement as a justified and necessary initiative against a state that places profits before people’s needs.