It started with a patch of damp, a dark bloom spreading across the bedroom ceiling. For months, Asya A. had emailed her letting agency, her polite requests met with silence, then deflection, and finally a notice of a rent increase. The damp was a symptom of a deeper sickness: a housing system that had left her isolated, powerless, and facing a choice between her health and her home.
It was a private battle she was convinced she was losing until a leaflet appeared in her tenement close, its bold text announcing a meeting for a new local branch of a tenants’ union. That evening, in a draughty community hall, she discovered her private struggle was a public grievance shared by dozens of her neighbours.
This story is not an anomaly in Glasgow; it is the catalyst for a profound shift in the city’s social fabric. The individual complaint, once a dead end, is becoming the foundation for collective strength. Tenants are turning away from the isolating path of individual negotiation and instead are building a new form of power from the ground up. This article documents the rise of tenants’ unions in Glasgow, a movement that is not merely asking for repairs but is fundamentally challenging the commodification of the home. It is an investigation into how organised people are rewriting the rules of a broken market.
This investigation unpacks the mechanics of this movement, tracing the line from whispered conversations in living rooms to the defiant chants on picket lines. This is a story about ordinary people achieving extraordinary things through solidarity and meticulous organisation. It is an account of how the simple act of talking to a neighbour can escalate into a city-wide campaign for justice. The question at the heart of this movement strikes at the core of our economic system and international human rights conventions: should a home be a financial asset or a fundamental human right?
The answer being forged in Glasgow’s tenements and housing schemes is unequivocal. Through rent strikes, eviction defences, and relentless political pressure, these unions are providing a compelling case for housing as a human right. They are demonstrating that when tenants act as one, they cease to be consumers of a product and become a social force. This is not just about securing better deals; it is a radical and necessary act of defiance. It is a practical and forward-looking blueprint for how collective action can confront and dismantle systemic inequality.
What is happening in Glasgow is a microcosm of a wider, more urgent conversation about precarity and power across the nation. The city, with its long and storied history of radical housing politics, is once again at the centre of a fight for its future. The unions are a direct response to the failures of a market that prioritises profit over people, a political system that seems unresponsive, and a media narrative that often overlooks the human cost of policy decisions. They represent a powerful expression of mutual aid housing in an age of austerity.
This article argues that the tenant union movement, which is reshaping housing power dynamics in the UK, is the most potent force for change in the modern housing crisis. It is a story of resistance, not of despair. It is about the transition from feeling like a victim of circumstance to becoming an agent of change. By uniting, tenants are not just fixing their damp ceilings; they are repairing the very foundations of a system that has been allowed to crumble for far too long.
The Anatomy of a Crisis: A City on the Brink
Glasgow’s housing emergency did not appear overnight; it is the result of decades of policy decisions that have chipped away at the foundations of public housing and tenant security. The city’s current predicament is a direct consequence of the large-scale transfer of council housing stock to housing associations, a process that began in the late 1980s and accelerated under New Labour (Watt, 2017). This shift was framed as a move towards efficiency and tenant empowerment, but for many, it has resulted in a fragmented and less accountable system. The promise of better management has often given way to the reality of rising service charges and a growing democratic deficit.
This privatisation, coupled with the lingering effects of the 2008 financial crash and a decade of UK government austerity, has created a perfect storm. Public services have been stripped back, wages have stagnated, and welfare reforms have targeted the most vulnerable, creating deep pockets of housing insecurity in Glasgow. According to housing charity Shelter Scotland, in 2022-23, one in every 17 private renters in the city faced eviction proceedings, a figure that lays bare the precarity of the market. The social safety net was not just weakened but systematically dismantled, leaving tenants to navigate this market with only the threadbare support of overstretched charities and their dwindling resources.
The statistics paint a stark picture of the city’s affordability crisis. Between 2010 and 2022, private rents for a two-bedroom property in Glasgow increased by over 40%, far outstripping wage growth (Scottish Government, 2023). This has pushed thousands of families into insecure, poor-quality, and overpriced accommodation, where the threat of eviction is a constant source of anxiety. The power imbalance is stark: landlords and letting agencies operate with significant leverage, while individual tenants are left with few meaningful avenues for redress. This is the landscape of the modern anti-austerity housing struggle.
This struggle is not without historical precedent in the city. The Glasgow rent strike of 1915, led by Mary Barbour and an army of working-class women, represents a seminal moment in British housing history. They successfully resisted landlord profiteering during the First World War, forcing the government to introduce the first-ever rent controls. This legacy of direct action and tenant solidarity runs deep in the city’s consciousness, providing a powerful historical narrative for today’s activists. The memory of this victory fuels the contemporary belief that collective action can, and does, work.
Today, that spirit is being channelled by organisations like Living Rent, which has become a focal point for housing activism in Glasgow. Founded in 2016, it has grown rapidly, establishing neighbourhood branches across the city that form the backbone of the movement. Its members are not seasoned political operatives but ordinary residents: students, young families, precarious workers, and pensioners. They are united by a shared experience of exploitation and a collective desire for change, proving that a grassroots housing movement can emerge from the most challenging conditions.
The crisis is also deeply intersectional, disproportionately affecting marginalised communities. Research indicates that women, people of colour, and disabled individuals are more likely to experience housing precarity and discrimination in the rental market (Hyslop, 2019). For these groups, the fight for housing justice is inseparable from the fight against wider social and economic inequalities. Tenants’ unions provide a platform where these intersecting struggles can be addressed collectively, building a more inclusive and representative movement for change.
The physical environment of the city tells its own story. The gleaming new developments along the Clyde stand in stark contrast to the crumbling tenements and neglected housing schemes in other parts of Glasgow. This architectural divide is a visual representation of a city where investment has been funnelled towards luxury apartments and student accommodation while existing communities are starved of resources. This visible inequality serves as a daily reminder of the priorities of a market-driven housing policy. It is a constant motivation for tenants organising in Glasgow.
The political response to this growing crisis has been widely criticised as inadequate. While the Scottish Government has introduced some measures aimed at improving tenant rights, such as the Private Residential Tenancy agreement, critics argue these do not go far enough. The lack of meaningful rent controls and the continued financialisation of housing mean that the fundamental dynamics of the market remain unchanged. This policy vacuum has created a space for grassroots organisations to step in and propose more radical solutions.
These unions are therefore not just responding to individual landlord disputes; they are responding to a systemic failure. They are a direct challenge to the neoliberal consensus that has dominated housing policy for a generation. Their work is an explicit act of resistance to housing commodification, a political project aimed at reclaiming the home as a place of security, not a site of extraction. They are building a compelling argument, block by block, that the market cannot be trusted to provide for a basic human need.
The emotional toll of this crisis cannot be overstated. The constant stress of dealing with disrepair, unaffordable rents, and the threat of homelessness has a profound impact on mental and physical health. It creates a sense of hopelessness that can be difficult to overcome alone. The tenants’ union offers an antidote to this despair: the discovery that one is not alone and that collective action can be a powerful source of hope and agency.
This is why the growth of the tenants’ union in the UK is so significant. It signals a rejection of the individualised burdens placed on tenants and a turn towards a shared, collective responsibility for one another’s wellbeing. It is a practical application of mutual aid in the face of state withdrawal and market failure. The story of Glasgow’s housing crisis is one of neglect, but the story of its tenants’ unions is one of resilience.
Yet, the anatomy of this crisis is one of power: who has it, who doesn’t, and how it is wielded. For too long, the balance has been tipped decisively in favour of landlords, developers, and financiers. The rise of tenants’ unions is a conscious and determined effort to rebalance that scale, to build a countervailing power that can stand up to vested interests and demand a city that provides safe, secure, and affordable homes for all its residents.
Tenants’ Union Organising: From Isolation to Solidarity
The journey from an isolated tenant to an active union member often begins with a single, transformative conversation. It is the moment a personal problem, long perceived as a private failing, is understood as a shared political issue. For many in Glasgow, this realisation occurs in a neighbour’s kitchen, a community hall, or a hastily organised meeting in a tenement backcourt. It is here that the architecture of the movement is built, one relationship at a time, turning disparate grievances into a coherent force for change. This is the foundational process of tenants organising in Glasgow.
Before the union, the typical path for a tenant facing a problem was a lonely and often fruitless one. It involved navigating bureaucratic complaint procedures, sending emails that went unanswered, and making phone calls that led nowhere. This process is designed to be exhausting and demoralising, reinforcing a sense of individual powerlessness that encourages people to give up. The system atomises tenants, ensuring they remain too isolated to mount an effective challenge against landlords or powerful letting agencies.
The union model directly confronts this imposed isolation. Creating accessible, neighbourhood-level branches provides a physical space for tenants to meet, share experiences, and realise the common patterns in their struggles. A leaking roof in one flat is an unfortunate incident; the same issue in ten flats in the same block is evidence of systemic neglect. This shift in perspective is the union’s first and most important victory, transforming individual despair into collective anger and, crucially, a shared strategy.
Consider the case of a Partick tenement, where a dozen families were issued with ‘no-fault’ eviction notices after their building was sold to a new landlord who intended to renovate and raise rents. Individually, they were preparing to leave, resigned to their fate in a heated property market. After a member of the living rent union in Glasgow canvassed the building, they organised their first meeting, and within a week, they had formed a building-wide branch and collectively refused to move, launching a public campaign that drew media attention and forced the landlord to the negotiating table.
This is the essence of tenant solidarity in action. It is a commitment to the principle that an injury to one is an injury to all. The union provides the structure and support needed to make this principle a reality, offering training in members’ rights, negotiation tactics, and direct action. It equips tenants with the tools they need to fight back, demystifying the legal jargon and complex procedures that are so often used to intimidate them.
The growth of these unions has been organic, spreading through word of mouth and highly visible local campaigns. A successful fight in one neighbourhood inspires tenants in the next, creating a ripple effect across the city. The use of social media and local press amplifies these victories, showing other precarious renters that change is possible. This visibility is a key organising tool, demonstrating the power of the union and encouraging more people to join the grassroots housing movement.
The movement is also consciously building an inclusive and democratic culture. Meetings are run on a participatory basis, ensuring that all voices are heard and that decisions are made collectively. There is a strong emphasis on developing the skills and confidence of members, training them to become organisers in their own right. This is not a service-provider model but a movement-building one, focused on creating a sustainable, member-led organisation capable of waging long-term campaigns.
This approach is a direct challenge to the top-down nature of traditional politics and NGO-led advocacy. Instead of relying on politicians to act on their behalf, tenants are taking control themselves. They are the experts on their living conditions, and the union provides the platform for them to articulate their demands and lead their struggles. This is a profound act of reclaiming agency in a system that has rendered them voiceless.
The psychological impact of this process is immense. The shame and stress associated with housing problems are replaced by a sense of empowerment and community. The union becomes more than just a vehicle for winning repairs or resisting rent hikes; it becomes a vital social hub. It is a place where friendships are formed, support networks are built, and a sense of belonging is fostered in communities that have been fragmented by social and economic pressures.
This model of organising is particularly effective in Glasgow’s tenements, where high-density living means neighbours are close. A single canvassing session can reach dozens of households, quickly identifying shared issues and building a critical mass of support. The physical layout of the city’s housing stock, a legacy of its industrial past, has inadvertently provided fertile ground for this new wave of collective action.
The birth of this movement is also a story about redefining what is considered political. The union insists that issues like damp, disrepair, and rent arrears are not private troubles but matters of public concern that demand a political solution. By taking collective action, tenants are politicising the everyday, challenging the artificial boundary between the home and the public sphere. They are asserting that the conditions in which they live are a legitimate and urgent subject for political debate and struggle.
Finally, the journey from isolation to solidarity is the story of how power is built from below. It demonstrates that the most effective response to concentrated wealth and institutional power is not despair, but organised, collective resistance. The tenants’ unions of Glasgow are a living testament to this fact, showing that even in the face of a severe housing crisis, a movement can be born, one conversation, one meeting, and one victory at a time.
The Glasgow Rent Strike Model: Collective Bargaining in Action
At the core of the tenants’ union strategy is a simple but powerful concept: collective bargaining tenants. This is the principle that tenants can achieve far more by negotiating together as a group than they ever could as isolated individuals. By uniting, they shift the balance of power, forcing landlords and letting agencies to deal with an organised and determined collective rather than a single, easily dismissed complainant. This is the primary mechanism through which tenants’ unions challenge landlords in Glasgow.
The process typically begins when a group of tenants in a single building or neighbourhood, organised into a union branch, collectively identifies a set of shared demands. These might range from specific repairs and maintenance issues to a freeze on rent increases or the removal of unjust service charges. The branch then formally communicates these demands to the landlord or agency, making it clear they are negotiating on behalf of all members in the building. This single act transforms the nature of the dispute.
When a landlord receives a letter from an individual, they hold all the cards; they can delay, ignore, or refuse the request with few immediate consequences. When they receive a letter from a union representing dozens of tenants, the calculation changes entirely. The implicit threat is that if the demands are not met, the union can escalate its actions, creating a situation that is far more costly and damaging for the landlord’s business and reputation than simply carrying out the necessary repairs.
One of the most potent tools in the union’s arsenal is the rent strike, a tactic used effectively by tenants in a Govanhill tenement who, in 2021, withheld rent for months to force their landlord to address widespread disrepair, ultimately winning a full refurbishment. This is a collective action where tenants agree to withhold their rent payments and instead pay them into a separate, protected strike fund. This tactic hits landlords where it hurts most: their income stream. A rent strike is a serious escalation and is only used when negotiations have broken down, but its effectiveness lies in its ability to create a significant financial and administrative crisis for the landlord, forcing them back to the table.
Public campaigns are another key component of the union’s strategy. By using social media, local press, and public demonstrations, the union can bring a dispute into the open, shining a light on the practices of negligent landlords. This creates reputational damage and puts pressure on them to resolve the issue to avoid further negative publicity. This tactic is particularly effective against large letting agencies or corporate landlords who are sensitive to their public image.
The union also engages in direct, non-violent action to disrupt the business-as-usual operations of the housing market. This can include peaceful pickets outside letting agency offices, phone blockades, and community demonstrations. These actions are designed to be visible and disruptive, ensuring that a dispute cannot be quietly ignored. They serve as a powerful reminder to the wider public of the ongoing tenants’ unions’ collective bargaining in the Glasgow housing crisis and the human stories behind it.
Legal support is another critical function. The union provides members with access to information about their rights and can help them navigate complex legal processes like the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber). While the focus is on collective action rather than individual legal cases, having a strong understanding of the law strengthens the tenants’ negotiating position. It ensures that landlords cannot use legal intimidation or misinformation to undermine a campaign.
These tactics are not used in isolation but are combined to create a multi-pronged strategy of escalating pressure. The union will always attempt to negotiate in good faith first, but if the landlord is unwilling to engage, the campaign will steadily intensify. This strategic flexibility allows the union to adapt its approach to the specific circumstances of each dispute, maximising its chances of success. It is a sophisticated and highly effective model of grassroots power.
The victories won through these methods have a tangible impact on tenants’ lives. They have resulted in thousands of pounds of repairs being carried out, illegal fees being refunded, rent increases being cancelled, and eviction notices being withdrawn. Each victory, no matter how small, serves to build the confidence and strength of the union. It provides concrete proof that the model works and encourages more tenants to join and get involved.
This process is fundamentally re-educating both tenants and landlords about the nature of their relationship. Tenants are learning that they are not powerless and that they have a right to a safe and secure home. Landlords are learning that they can no longer rely on the isolation of their tenants to avoid their responsibilities. The union is establishing a new norm where tenants are recognised as an organised and powerful stakeholder in the housing system.
The mechanics of power being deployed by Glasgow’s tenants’ unions are a practical lesson in grassroots democracy. They show that by organising, developing a clear strategy, and being willing to take collective action, it is possible to challenge entrenched power and win meaningful concessions. This is not a theoretical exercise; it is a real-world struggle being fought and won in the city’s neighbourhoods every day.
Yet, collective bargaining is about more than just winning individual disputes. It is a strategy for long-term, systemic change. By consistently challenging the power of landlords and demonstrating a viable alternative, the union is slowly but surely rewriting the rules of the game. They are proving that the housing market does not have to be a one-sided affair and that organised tenants can and will have their say.
More Than a Roof: Mutual Aid and Community Defence
The work of tenants’ unions in Glasgow extends far beyond rent negotiations and demands for repairs. At their heart, these organisations are projects in community building and mutual aid housing. They are creating networks of care and solidarity that are rebuilding the social fabric in neighbourhoods that have been frayed by years of austerity and neglect. This focus on community defence is what makes the union a truly transformative force, providing support that the state has withdrawn and the market will never offer.
A central pillar of this work is the practice of eviction defence campaigns. When a union member faces the threat of eviction, the local branch mobilises the community to resist it. This can take many forms, from organising a picket outside the tenant’s home to prevent bailiffs from entering, to launching a public campaign to pressure the landlord to withdraw the notice. The message is clear: the community will not stand by and watch one of its own be made homeless.
These campaigns are a powerful and often emotional expression of tenant solidarity. They demonstrate a collective refusal to accept the violence and indignity of forced eviction. The sight of dozens of neighbours standing together to protect a family’s home is a potent symbol of the union’s strength and a stark warning to any landlord who thinks they can act with impunity. These actions have successfully prevented numerous evictions across the city, keeping families in their homes and communities intact.
This ethos of mutual aid is also evident in the day-to-day activities of the union. Members help each other with practical tasks, from navigating complex welfare application forms to providing food and support to families facing financial hardship. The union branch becomes a hub for local support, connecting people with the resources they need and fostering a culture of collective responsibility. This is a grassroots alternative to the often-impersonal and inadequate support offered by state agencies.
These networks of care are particularly important for the most vulnerable members of the community. For elderly residents, disabled people, or single parents, the union can be a vital lifeline. It provides a community that can advocate on their behalf and offer practical support that makes a real difference to their quality of life. In this way, the union is actively building a more inclusive and caring society from the ground up.
The community-building aspect of the union also serves a crucial political function. Fostering strong social bonds between neighbours makes it easier to organise and mobilise for collective action. People are more likely to take risks and stand up for their rights when they know they have the backing of a strong and supportive community. The social and the political are deeply intertwined in the union’s work.
This focus on community defence is a direct response to the increasing atomisation of modern life. The union actively works to counteract the isolation that many people feel, organising social events, workshops, and community meals. These activities help to build trust and friendship between members, strengthening the bonds of solidarity that are essential for any successful organising effort. It is about creating a movement that is not just effective but also welcoming and sustainable.
The practice of mutual aid also represents a powerful ideological challenge to the individualism that underpins the current economic system. It is a rejection of the idea that we are all on our own and an assertion of our interdependence. The union demonstrates that by pooling our resources and supporting one another, we can create a more resilient and equitable society than the market ever could. It is a living example of a different set of values.
This work is also about reclaiming public space. Union branches often meet in community centres, libraries, and parks, reasserting the importance of these shared civic assets. They organise community clean-ups and campaign for better local amenities, taking an active role in improving the quality of life in their neighbourhoods. This is part of a broader struggle to defend public services and resist the privatisation of the public realm.
The impact of this community-building work is profound. It helps to restore a sense of pride and agency in communities that have been systematically disinvested and marginalised. It shows that residents are not passive recipients of policy but active agents in shaping the future of their neighbourhoods. This is a vital part of the anti-austerity housing struggle, a fight that is as much about dignity and respect as it is about material conditions.
The tenants’ union, therefore, is much more than a special interest group for renters. It is a vehicle for broad-based community empowerment. It is a school for democracy, a network of care, and a centre for social life. It is rebuilding the very idea of community in a city that has been put under immense pressure.
Finally, the union’s work on mutual aid and community defence is a recognition that a home is more than just a roof over one’s head. A home is a place of safety, a source of community, and the foundation upon which a dignified life is built. By defending their neighbours and building strong communities, the tenants of Glasgow are fighting for a vision of housing that is rooted in human connection and collective wellbeing.
A Global Blueprint for Housing Justice UK and Beyond
The successes of the tenants’ unions in Glasgow are not just local victories; they provide a powerful and replicable blueprint for challenging housing inequality across the country. The strategies being developed in the city offer a clear path for other communities looking to build tenant power. As the housing crisis deepens nationwide, the Glasgow model is being watched closely as a source of both inspiration and practical guidance, demonstrating how the tenant union movement, reshaping housing power dynamics in the UK, can be achieved.
The Glasgow movement does not exist in a vacuum; it is part of a growing international chorus of tenant resistance. In Berlin, a powerful tenants’ movement successfully campaigned for a five-year rent freeze (the Mietendeckel), and though it was later overturned on constitutional grounds, it radically shifted the national conversation. Similarly, Barcelona’s Sindicat de Llogateres (Tenants’ Union) has pioneered collective negotiations and political pressure, inspiring tenant organising across Spain. These international struggles show that the fight in Glasgow is a local front in a global battle for the right to the city.
One of the key lessons from Glasgow is the importance of a neighbourhood-based organising model. By building strong, autonomous local branches, the union ensures that it remains rooted in the communities it represents. This decentralised structure allows the union to be responsive to local issues while still being able to coordinate city-wide and national campaigns. It is a model that can be adapted to any town or city, regardless of its size or specific housing landscape.
The question of how to start a tenants’ union in the Glasgow community is one that the movement is actively trying to answer for other localities. The process begins with the slow, patient work of door-to-door canvassing and one-on-one conversations. It involves identifying existing community leaders, mapping out the key housing issues in an area, and bringing people together for an initial meeting. The Glasgow experience shows that from these small beginnings, a powerful organisation can be built.
A central political demand that has emerged from the movement is the call for robust rent controls. The unions are at the forefront of rent control activism in Scotland, arguing that the only way to tackle the affordability crisis is to regulate the market directly. They are campaigning for a points-based system that would link rents to the quality and condition of the property, taking the power to set rents out of the hands of landlords. This campaign is a key part of the strategy to scale the movement’s impact from individual disputes to systemic policy change.
The Glasgow model also provides a blueprint for how to build a broad-based coalition for housing justice. The unions work closely with other community groups, trade unions, and activist organisations, recognising that the housing struggle is connected to wider issues of workers’ rights, migrant justice, and public services. This coalition-building approach amplifies the movement’s power and helps to build a united front against the vested interests that dominate the housing market.
The movement is also having a significant impact on the political discourse around housing. By consistently highlighting the failures of the market and putting forward a clear set of alternative policies, the unions are shifting the terms of the debate. They are forcing politicians and policymakers to take the issue of tenant power seriously and to consider solutions that were previously deemed too radical. The idea of housing as a human right is moving from the margins to the mainstream of political discussion.
The success of eviction defence campaigns in Glasgow has also provided a powerful model for other cities. The tactic of using community mobilisation to physically prevent evictions has been adopted by tenant groups across the UK. This is a clear example of how effective strategies can be shared and adapted, creating a national network of resistance and solidarity. It is a testament to the growing strength and sophistication of the tenants’ union in the UK.
Furthermore, the emphasis on member education and leadership development is crucial for the long-term sustainability of the movement. By investing in the skills and confidence of its members, the union is building a new generation of community organisers. This is essential for ensuring that the movement can continue to grow and adapt to new challenges in the years to come. It is a model for building lasting, democratic, and member-led power.
The Glasgow unions have also shown the importance of being unapologetically political. They are not afraid to name the root causes of the housing crisis: a neoliberal economic system that prioritises profit over people. This clear political analysis is what distinguishes them from more service-oriented housing charities. It is what makes them a movement, not just an advice service.
The legal and political context in Scotland, with its devolved government and distinct housing legislation, has provided a unique environment for the movement’s growth. However, the core principles of grassroots organising, collective bargaining, and direct action are universally applicable. The specific demands may change, but the fundamental strategy of building collective power from the ground up remains the same.
The challenge now is to scale this model effectively. This will require dedicated resources, a commitment to long-term organising, and a willingness to build alliances across different sectors of society. It will also require a continued focus on winning concrete victories that demonstrate the power of the union and inspire more people to get involved. The future of the UK’s housing landscape may well depend on the success of this effort.
Eventually, the Glasgow model is a message of hope. It is a demonstration that even in the face of a seemingly intractable crisis, change is possible. It shows that by organising, tenants can move from being passive victims of the market to being active agents in shaping their destiny. This is the blueprint that is being shared, a powerful story of how collective action can forge a path towards a more just and equitable future.
The Media Blind Spot: Reporting on Resistance
How often do you read a story about the housing crisis that frames it as an inevitable market fluctuation, a complex interplay of supply and demand? The mainstream media narrative is frequently dominated by the language of economics, focusing on house price indices, mortgage rates, and rental yields. This framing, while appearing neutral, serves to obscure the political choices and power dynamics that have manufactured the crisis, and it consistently sidelines the voices of those most affected: the tenants themselves. Is this not a critical failure of journalistic responsibility?
The story of the grassroots housing movement in Glasgow is often relegated to the margins of this dominant narrative, if it is covered at all. A successful eviction defence might get a brief mention in the local press, but the deeper, systemic analysis offered by the unions is rarely given a platform. The media’s focus on individual stories of hardship, while sometimes well-intentioned, can inadvertently reinforce the sense of isolation and powerlessness that the unions are working to overcome. It presents a series of private tragedies rather than a collective political struggle.
This represents an ethical dilemma at the heart of modern journalism. Should the media act as a passive observer, reflecting the perspectives of those already in power—landlords’ associations, property developers, and government officials? Or should it have a proactive duty to investigate and amplify the stories of those who are actively challenging that power from below? The current imbalance in coverage suggests that many outlets have chosen the former, failing to hold the powerful to account and neglecting a vital story of social change.
The work of tenants organising in Glasgow is a direct challenge to this media status quo. The unions are becoming adept at creating their media, using social media platforms, blogs, and community newsletters to tell their own stories in their own words. They are bypassing traditional gatekeepers to build a narrative that centres their experiences and articulates their political demands. This is an act of informational self-defence against a media landscape that so often misrepresents or ignores them.
A more responsible journalism would move beyond simply reporting on rising rents and instead investigate the corporate structures and financial interests that profit from them. It would scrutinise the lobbying efforts of the property industry and question the political decisions that have led to the decline of social housing. It would, in short, follow the money and the power, providing the public with the context they need to understand the true nature of the resistance to housing commodification.
Similarly, there is a clear bias in how protest and direct action are often portrayed. The actions of tenants’ unions, such as pickets or rent strikes, are sometimes framed as disruptive or unreasonable, while the routine, systemic violence of eviction and unaffordable housing is presented as a normal feature of the market. This is a failure to distinguish between the actions of the oppressed and the power of the oppressor, a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of social conflict.
A human-centred, investigative approach, in the style of the best campaigning journalism, would embed reporters within these movements. It would tell the stories of the organisers and members, making the abstract concept of collective bargaining tangible and relatable. It would document the long, patient work of building a union, the emotional highs of a successful campaign, and the strategic thinking that underpins their actions. This is how you tell the story of a movement, not as a single event, but as a living, evolving process.
The failure to adequately cover this movement is also a failure of representation. The voices that dominate the housing debate are overwhelmingly those of middle-class homeowners, politicians, and industry experts. The voices of renters, particularly those from working-class and marginalised communities, are conspicuously absent. A media that purports to serve the public has to correct this imbalance and ensure that all perspectives are heard.
This is not a call for biased or partisan reporting. It is a call for a journalism that is true to its democratic mission: to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. It is a call for a media that is willing to question official narratives and investigate the root causes of social problems. The rise of tenants’ unions is one of the most significant social movement stories in the UK today; it deserves to be treated as such.
The language used in reporting is also critically important. Phrases like “the housing ladder” implicitly validate the idea of housing as an investment to be climbed, rather than a right to be secured. A more critical journalism would question this framing and use language that reflects the reality of the situation for millions of people for whom “the ladder” is completely out of reach. It would talk about homes, not units; communities, not markets.
The media’s blind spot on this issue has real-world consequences. It allows politicians to evade scrutiny, landlords to avoid accountability, and it slows the growth of a movement that offers a viable solution to the crisis. By failing to report adequately on this story of resistance, the media becomes complicit in the maintenance of a status quo that is failing millions. It is a dereliction of its duty to inform the public and facilitate a healthy democratic debate.
What would it look like if our major news outlets dedicated the same resources to investigating the housing crisis from the tenant’s perspective as they do to their property sections? What if the story of housing activism in Glasgow were given the same prominence as the fluctuations of the FTSE 100? The answer is that it would change the conversation entirely, empowering the public to demand a system that truly provides housing as a human right for all.
Join the Fight for Housing Justice
The story of Glasgow’s tenants’ unions is more than a local housing dispute; it is a powerful counter-narrative to an age of individualism and market supremacy. It is a practical demonstration that the most effective response to systemic inequality is not individual resilience but collective resistance. The movement is forging a new social contract in the city’s tenements and housing schemes, one based on solidarity, mutual aid, and an unshakeable belief in the principle of a right to a home. This is not a fleeting moment of protest but the patient construction of a lasting, democratic power.
The men and women building this movement are not asking for permission to have their rights respected; they are organising to enforce them. They are challenging the very foundation of a housing system that has been designed to extract wealth from communities, and in its place, they are building a model rooted in human need. The work is difficult, the victories are hard-won, and the struggle is far from over. But in a political climate often defined by cynicism and despair, the unions offer a compelling and tangible source of hope.
They are proving that the power of organised people can still move mountains, even in the face of entrenched financial interests and political inertia. The blueprint being refined in Glasgow—of neighbourhood organising, direct action, and unwavering solidarity—is a vital contribution to the wider struggle for social and economic justice in the UK and beyond. It is a reminder that the institutions that shape our lives are not immutable; they can be challenged, changed, and rebuilt from the ground up.
The core ethical question remains, and the answer that Glasgow’s tenants are providing grows louder every day. A home is not a commodity. It is the bedrock of a stable life, the anchor of a community, and a fundamental human right that no market should have the power to deny. The struggle to make that principle a reality is the defining social justice issue of our time. The question is no longer whether change is possible, but how you will be a part of it. Support the campaigns, share the resources, and if you are a tenant, join your local union. The fight for a home is a fight for us all.
References
Hyslop, J. (2019). Race, discrimination and the private rental sector in Scotland. Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research.
Scottish Government. (2023). Private Sector Rent Statistics, Scotland, 2010-2022. Scottish Government Publications.
Shelter Scotland. (2023). Evictions in the private rented sector. Shelter Scotland Policy Library.
Watt, P. (2017). Social Housing and Urban Renewal: A Cross-National Perspective. Emerald Group Publishing.
Keep Independent Voices Alive!
Rock & Art – Cultural Outreach is more than a magazine; it’s a movement—a platform for intersectional culture and slow journalism, created by volunteers with passion and purpose.
But we need your help to continue sharing these untold stories. Your support keeps our indie media outlet alive and thriving.
Donate today and join us in shaping a more inclusive, thoughtful world of storytelling. Every contribution matters.”
