Running parallel to the struggles over the city was a struggle in the halls of power which pivoted around a redefinition of the very purpose and method of governing. This pivot has been examined through various terms – “neoliberalism”, “free enterprise” or “marketization”. But all of them reference a principle called “public choice”: the market rather than government is the most efficient mechanism by which to maximize social welfare. Part of this principle implies that administrators should govern as if the state – local and national – is a business.

In 1976, Oxford economists Roger Bacon and Walter Eltis published Britain’s Economic Problem: Too Few Producers. In the book they argued that the growth of government employment was at the expense of capital. They dubbed this swelling of the state as the “British disease” – a “shift of employment from industry to services, and public services in particular”. The disease, they argued, “had no equal in any other large Western developed economy” (Bacon & Eltis 1976: 12). As a solution, the authors promoted a pro-business approach, which trusted industry and commerce – rather than the state and administration – with the generation of wealth.

Concerns about state spending pulled at the seams of governance. Many on the Conservative right saw a necessity for huge cuts, using private enterprise to replace state inefficiencies As Labour formed a government in the wake of the oil crisis and recession, there was growing acceptance that drastic economic measures would soon need to be taken. Some in government argued that nationalization had not gone far enough. Still, the public mood was shifting as the economy suffered.

Housing and land became key areas of contestation. To reduce costs and generate revenue entailed freeing up and repurposing prime real estate, especially in cities and conurbations. The local state was marshalled to increase the price of land and property as more and more of the nation’s wealth became bound to property markets.

The politics of redevelopment from the Edinburgh clearances onwards has always produced dual effects – on the one hand, destroying substandard homes, on the other hand, providing good homes at a higher price.