Choice? What choice? The residents of Clapham Park Estate might be asking themselves that as they head off to the polls within a couple of weeks. People who live in what was judged Lambeth's worst housing estate will be voting on whether to transfer their homes from Lambeth council to a new community-led housing association. Since 1997, 142 estates have voted yes in housing-transfer votes, while only 25 have voted no. A wise decision, since this is a gun-to-the-head choice.  Here's what confronts them: vote yes and in exchange for selling off some land you get your estate repaired and large parts of it rebuilt with new homes with larger rooms, a new park, new play areas, a new school and improvements all round - or else. Else what? Nothing, or almost nothing.   If they vote no, eventually the estate will be repaired to the standards of the government's "decent homes" target - but that is a pretty basic improvement. In most of Clapham Park, a decent homes makeover would mean hardly more than a bit of damp-proofing and a lick of paint, and perhaps not for years. It would not include central heating, insulation, new kitchens or bathrooms, entry phones on front doors or lifts - all of which will be provided under the stock transfer plan if they vote yes.   So where is the choice? A gleaming refurbished estate with lots of new housing and an extra 225 social homes, or carrying on much the same? It's a no-brainer: opinion poll samples taken so far suggest the residents will vote for the change. And yet now that can't be taken for granted.   Over the last years, I have been observing meetings where the plans have been drawn up with tenants in the driving seat of the board that runs the estate. There have been extensive consultations and public meetings. But at the last moment, the Defend Council Housing group has moved to mount a campaign for a no vote. A war of leaflets and meetings has broken out. Insults are flying to and fro, roughly translated as "a bunch of Trots" versus "a bunch of pocket-liners bent on doing down the tenants for profit". This is typical of the pattern of the debate that has raged over these ballots.   Defend Council Housing is wrong on this stock transfer. And they are very wrong to frighten tenants with - to put it politely - misleading stories about what the plan will mean. They have been telling tenants that they will lose their security of tenure (false: it will get written back in) and that they will pay higher rents (false: true in the past but Labour has put council and housing association rents on a par, by law). Worst of all is the charge that they will be permanently decanted but no one knows to where. This last is the most powerful fear. But tenants have been given a firm guarantee that they can all stay on exactly the same part of the rebuilt estate, which is strongly divided between the east and west sides. (A false rumour said all the social housing was to be squeezed into the east, while the lush west would be new, private homes).   What makes these ideological battles hard is that, despite its fear-mongering tactics, many agree that Defend Council Housing is not altogether wrong. This government keeps boasting about giving choice to public-service users - but choice, it seems, does not extend to council tenants. Alan Milburn uses the council estate of his youth as an example of the need for choice, recalling how the council painted all the doors the same colour, but the tenants' right to choose their landlord is rather more important than door colour.   Local authorities only transfer homes to housing associations because of Treasury rules and political dogma allowing housing associations but not councils to borrow money on future development. A stroke of the pen could let councils do likewise. However, now is no time to tamper with how the public sector borrowing requirement is calculated, in the middle of an election fought over a so-called "black hole" in government finances.   Stock transfer opponents are right to object to selling off council-owned land for private development, when expensive land in the south-east is needed for more social and key-worker homes in London. Lambeth, which is short of school places, already regrets sales of old schools converted into loft apartments.   So how should the tenants on Clapham Park vote? The danger is that some will be swayed by scare tactics and false rumours spread by the anti campaign. People are easily frightened and a tenancy can feel precarious: this is their home, their neighbours, their future.   However, in weighing it up, Lambeth council tenants know they have had nothing to be grateful for in the past 30 years from a council landlord who has mismanaged and neglected them and is still deep in debt. When Camden tenants voted against stock transfer, they wanted to stay with a beacon council with an "excellent" rating as a landlord: but voting no left them stranded without new money. Housing experts say the government should give the best councils the same powers as housing associations. But Lambeth is no Camden.   This vote matters more here: it is a vote of confidence in the residents themselves, who have been helping to run the estate for the past five years. Clapham Park is one of the 39 New Deal for Communities (NDCs) - a remarkable experiment in handing more power to tenants elected to   chair and sit on the board that runs it. It is they who oversaw the masterplan. Given 56m to spend over 10 years, NDCs are one of Labour's most radical regeneration ideas, closely monitored, a regeneration testbed for all kinds of social enterprise, and their success matters.   So when Defend Council Housing puts out leaflets claiming "Regeneration isn't about our needs, it's about other people making money out of our misery", it is a direct attack on Clapham Park residents elected by other residents. This is no place to play out politics.   The management board of local tenants gives up a phenomenal amount of unpaid time and has done well, hitting most targets for improvement. New community support officers patrol the estate, scores of crack houses have been closed, prostitution is less aggressive, there are CCTV cameras in the worst zones, crime is down and the number of residents feeling unsafe after dark has dropped from 78% to 43%. After paying for extra teachers for schools and after-school clubs, exam results have improved - above target in English, despite the many non-English speakers.   There may be too little choice in how to vote, but Clapham Park residents should block their ears to those who tell them that their own elected New Deal board has done anything but what's best in drawing up this plan. Defend Council Housing's campaign of fear could put it all at risk: it has already left many estates without a future after a no vote. It should argue this out with the national politicians, not jeopardise the best chances of local people.