CAMDEN: LONDON'S

Labour controls 21 out of the 32 inner London boroughs. And today only one-Camden-still stands out against the Tory government's 'fair rents' Act.

Betrayal has followed betrayal—-assisted by the absence of leadership from the top of the Labour Party-to a point where in an area where support for the party is among the strongest, the fight is the weakest.

Now the Labour councillors at Camden, in north London, who represent over 22,000 tenants, are under enormous pressure to capitulate and join the ranks of those prepared to assist in the destruction of municipal housing.

Just before Christmas the council-already defaulted by the Tories-received a letter from Geoffrey Rippon, new Secretary of State for the Environment, threatening to withhold subsidies due to be paid to Camden.

The total loss high as f8m if Camden continues defying the instructions to implement the increases.

It would mean something like a 25p in the £ rates increase for all Camden householders - including council tenants-to make up for the loss in the revenue and enable the accounts to be balanced.

In this situation a number of councillors previously in favour of non-implementation are said to be wavering and could fall down the wrong side of the line at next week's meeting.

Camden tenants' groups have called a meeting and demonstration tomorrow to mobilize local tenants behind those defiant councillors and to stiffen those having 'second thoughts' about the matter.

Following its August decision not to implement the, the council began a long round of discussions with the government in an attempt to win a few concessions on the Act.

In the end, they were given a few crumbs of comfort, if that's what they can be called. Rent increases were reduced from 100p to an average of 85p and rent-rebate levels were increased from £10 to £12.

Of course the Ministers would not back down on the principles of the Act.

So valuable time was lost in discussions and the majority in favour of non-implementation subsequently fell to just four— with many Labourites voting with the Tories.

In the key policy and resources committee, the majority in favour of continuing defiance slipped to just one at the meeting on December 11 last year.

Rents in the borough are among some of the highest in the whole of Britain-£ll a week is not unusual. As a result, many tenants are finding it impossible to keep up the payments-especially as prices are rising so fast.

Rent arrears in the borough now amount to a staggering £426,000—or over 8 per cent of all potential revenue.

Although the government appears reluctant to provoke a direct confrontation by sending in a Housing Commissioner or using the weapon of the extraordinary audit, the noose is tightening around Camden councillors' necks.

If Camden-one of 20 nonimplementing councils in Britain-is forced to put up rates to match the loss in housing subsidies, some councillors suggest retaliation by refusing to pay over money due to the Greater London Council.

But this would only lead to a hopeless mess, with the Tory government — which directly controls through grants about 75 per cent of Camden's expenditure-cutting out more and more subsidies.

As far as the Tory government are concerned, the Act is central to its perspective of destroying basic democratic rights and driving down the living standards of the working class.

Its introduction flowed from the needs of the employing class which-in the midst of a deepening economic crisiscan only try and resolve its problems through direct attacks on the working class.

For the Tories the end of municipal housing is the way not only to impose wage-cuts on workers through a doubling of council rents, but also to raise money for investment in At the same time, of course, the introduction of the free market forces into council vot: imp in an ber Ant Tor nov 25p son ing cor gra anc in I

ACE 6 Workars Pross, Saturday seamary 6, 1973 ERE RESIDENTS ASSOCIAIIONS CAMD COi CAMDEN AGTION COMMIT 3IG Osм. 100.

reversed the decision at conta ence to back the councilo against the Act. 'And the Parliamentary Labo Party has given no directic O'CONNOR BUDD either, dividing the issue on tt barest diversions. The PLP ha