If we limit social/council housing to those who are unable to afford anything else, aren't we in danger of ghettoising? If he had gone and bought/rented a fancy big villa, I can't see it would have stopped the critics anyway.
Personally, I think the right-wing media demonisation of his character and accusations of hypocrisy were always out of order: those sorts of things are matters for internal governance only.
However, what WAS fair game to be attacked was his militant, Luddite attitude. In my opinion (and the opinion of many moderate commentators/politicians/industry analysts etc), he was a major barrier to modernisation and necessary streamlining, particularly in the overground and underground railway industries.
I wouldn't be at all surprised, incidentally, if he did garner huge support among "his workers". After all, if you're a LU tube driver or a regional railways guard, you are liable to be supportive of a leader who is fighting tooth and nail for the preservation of your job at all costs, and being a totally belligerent "negotiator" in wage disputes. I doubt that many tube drivers or railway guards are very interested in the economic/technological arguments in favour of fewer staff - turkeys and Christmas spring to mind.......
And, by the way, it's only because of the unique nature of the railway industry in particular that Crow was able to maintain his militancy. He knew very well, for example, that underground strikes are massively damaging to the London (and therefore UK) economy - and that therefore they are an extremely powerful stick to be able to wave around. It's the fact that the LU is a) a local monopoly and b) dominated by one union - his one, that made him such a disproportionately powerful figure in the national consciousness. By contrast, Unite (a far far larger union covering a range of nationally-important industries) could not these days be militant even if it wanted to: most of its members work in the free market private sector, and its leadership could not therefore hold the country to ransom in anywhere like the same way.
So, it's sad to see a significant figure in British politics die in office, at a comparatively young age, but I for one will not be mourning his loss at a political/industrial/economic level. Regrettably, the nature of the hierarchy at the top of the RMT strongly suggests that his death will not bring an end to the union's militancy or Luddite attitudes.
