I've always been loathe to assign lazy designations to people's political ideologies. Whilst you can with some effort, define what left wing, right wing, libertarian, communism, socialism etc all amount to, it's actually very hard to transpose those definitions on to individuals and even harder to do it enmasse. We all have so many varied opinions that we rarely fit into those neat little boxes. However, it's not unreasonable to use such broad strokes when breaking down the political make up of a nation (what other way could you do it?) and when you apply it, it's fair to say that most countries have a political division along left wing/right wing lines.
In Northern Ireland, we're no exception. The trouble is, we also throw ourselves into a national identity division, too. So much so, that it almost overrides everything else. Is there anyone who would dispute that, with obvious exceptions, the political make up in Northern Ireland is that Unionist parties are mostly right wing and Nationalist parties are mostly left wing? I'm not trying to describe the SDLP or Sinn Fein as left wing but merely pointing out that they're definitely more left than right and the reverse applies with the DUP and UUP.
So here's the problem: who do left wing unionists vote for and who do right wing nationalists vote for? OK, it's not a new problem but it's one I feel that the DUP & UUP, in particular, haven't really spent enough time thinking about. Both of those parties need to recognise that despite their best efforts, they're not going to eradicate the left wing in Northern Ireland. That means that the large block of left wing voters will need someone to vote for. Right now, the best options (in terms of winning seats) happen to be two Nationalist parties.
What the DUP & the UUP should want to see is the emergence of a left wing party that is either pro union, pro status quo or, at the very least, completely uninterested in campaigning on the issue either way. The DUP made the mistake recently of thinking that Alliance were the enemy. Why? Alliance are never, ever going to be calling for a border poll. They're never going to push a UI agenda. If Alliance replaced both the UUP & the SDLP, the constitutional question would be dead and buried and Sinn Fein would be marginalised - democratically.
Now, I want to be clear that I'm not holding up Alliance as a left wing party - they're really, really not - but I'm trying to demonstrate the point that the two big unionist parties are missing the point: if they want to secure the union once and for all, they need a left wing opposition to their right wing politics that isn't Nationalist. It doesn't need to be unionist (in fact, it won't work if it is) but it does need to be big enough and serious enough to take away those SF & SDLP voters who vote for those parties in spite of the nationalist ideology and not because of it.
This is one of those rare instances where the same logic can't be reversed and applied to the other side. Sinn Fein's goal of a united Ireland will not be realised by having a right wing opposition that doesn't place identity politics first, because the status quo is no good to them.
If you're a DUP or UUP voter, you should ask yourself who you would rather have sat on the other side of the house. If I was in their shoes, I'd want a strong left wing party that, frankly, doesn't obsess with trying to change Northern Ireland's constitutional position. I'm not suggesting that the DUP go out and fund a left wing party to try and usurp the Nationalist parties (though all donations are gratefully considered) but their strategists should see any rise in non nationalist parties as a good thing, rather than try and destroy them.
Wednesday, 6 February 2013
Tuesday, 29 January 2013
On the weakness running through Alliance policy.
Alliance has, today (well, specifically at midnight last night) launched their very own Cohesion, Sharing & Integration (CSI) plan entitled "for everyone". You can, and should, have a read of it on their website. It's a pretty good effort and there is some valuable content but for me, what stands out the most is their approach, in this document and in their overall policy, toward education.
Alliance have, to their credit, always acknowledged that the ultimate source of our extreme divisions is in the way we educate our children. It may be argued that the real source of division is the constitutional position of Northern Ireland and, to a degree, that's correct. Though where it develops from just a normal division of political positions and is turned into the extreme that we currently experience is in our education system.
Dress it up any which way you like, but the state currently funds and operates segregated education based on faith - Catholic children are segregated from Protestants and non Catholics. Only the most naive individual would deny the link between faith and national identity in Northern Ireland. Yes, some Catholics are unionists and some Protestants are nationalists but they're the exception and we need to deal with the norm.
I digress - this post isn't meant to be about whether segregated education is the issue; Alliance think it is, I agree, but have problems with Alliance's proposals to address it.
The target Alliance proposes is for a minimum of 20% of children to be in integrated education by 2020. Why only 20%, why not 100%? If Alliance think that integrated education is the solution why on earth are they content to settle on a policy that only marginally reduces division? Why can't Alliance state clearly the level at which they want our education system to be integrated? Is it 50%, 60%, 70%? If it's 100% why not come straight out with it and be honest - tell the electorate they want to see an end to all segregation based on religion. If it's less than 100%, tell the electorate what percentage of children they are happy to be educated in a segregated system?
I suspect the answer is simply down to electoral politics. People in Northern Ireland still, on the whole, support segregation and the Catholic school system is still very popular amongst nationalist communities. Any policy that aims to reduce the number of Catholic schools will most likely be attacked as anti-nationalist or anti-Catholic, whether it is or not. See the Irish News today for evidence of that.
And that's the weakness with Alliance's approach to education. They have framed it with the reaction of the electorate in mind. That's not leadership. A party that truly wanted to 'lead change' would be bold enough to be honest and clear with the electorate and then set about convincing them of the merit of their argument. This isn't a policy, it's a pathway to a policy that the Alliance party are not yet brave enough to embrace.
Alliance have, to their credit, always acknowledged that the ultimate source of our extreme divisions is in the way we educate our children. It may be argued that the real source of division is the constitutional position of Northern Ireland and, to a degree, that's correct. Though where it develops from just a normal division of political positions and is turned into the extreme that we currently experience is in our education system.
Dress it up any which way you like, but the state currently funds and operates segregated education based on faith - Catholic children are segregated from Protestants and non Catholics. Only the most naive individual would deny the link between faith and national identity in Northern Ireland. Yes, some Catholics are unionists and some Protestants are nationalists but they're the exception and we need to deal with the norm.
I digress - this post isn't meant to be about whether segregated education is the issue; Alliance think it is, I agree, but have problems with Alliance's proposals to address it.
The target Alliance proposes is for a minimum of 20% of children to be in integrated education by 2020. Why only 20%, why not 100%? If Alliance think that integrated education is the solution why on earth are they content to settle on a policy that only marginally reduces division? Why can't Alliance state clearly the level at which they want our education system to be integrated? Is it 50%, 60%, 70%? If it's 100% why not come straight out with it and be honest - tell the electorate they want to see an end to all segregation based on religion. If it's less than 100%, tell the electorate what percentage of children they are happy to be educated in a segregated system?
I suspect the answer is simply down to electoral politics. People in Northern Ireland still, on the whole, support segregation and the Catholic school system is still very popular amongst nationalist communities. Any policy that aims to reduce the number of Catholic schools will most likely be attacked as anti-nationalist or anti-Catholic, whether it is or not. See the Irish News today for evidence of that.
And that's the weakness with Alliance's approach to education. They have framed it with the reaction of the electorate in mind. That's not leadership. A party that truly wanted to 'lead change' would be bold enough to be honest and clear with the electorate and then set about convincing them of the merit of their argument. This isn't a policy, it's a pathway to a policy that the Alliance party are not yet brave enough to embrace.
Tuesday, 4 December 2012
Rioting is awful. Ignorant, superior condemnation almost as bad.
Or: 'if you trivialise issues that matter to people and ignore their continued disenfranchisement, you should maybe not be surprised when the inevitable happens and legitimate protests provide cover for extreme elements to manipulate the situation'.
Is there anyone who didn't expect violence to break out at Belfast City Hall last night? It was entirely predictable to all, with the apparent exception of the DUP who had no earthly idea that their rhetoric would have any effect on the mood of working class unionist communities. But I think it's safe to say that we all knew what was coming and no one was surprised. That would explain the lightening quick condemnation, from all political quarters, of those who were rioting as little more than violent scum, only interested in destruction and causing trouble. They were nothing but thugs, hoods, little shits and loyalist arseholes.
Hmm. I don't buy it. You see: to agree with that kind of thinking means I have to accept that a significant section of society just enjoys violence and doesn't really care about the issues at hand. No, you can't write the violence off to a few bad apples or isolated criminal elements. If that were true, we wouldn't be using the term riot. By it's nature, a riot needs a critical mass for it to exist and I don't really think you can use the words 'critical mass' and 'isolated elements' together without sounding like an idiot.
The extremists within the protest last night felt that they had the implicit support of the majority of the protest. Disagree if you like, but can you honestly say they would have been as violent if that weren't the case?
You can't just prattle off the insipid 'there's no justification for violence' line and expect people to suddenly agree. The reality is that people do justify violence (in fact, most people justify it to some degree) and if you want them to stop being violent you have to address the issues that they are using to justify it and not dismiss them as irrelevant and not linked.
This was never just about a flag and it was not even just about what the flag represented. It was about the abject failure of the ruling political parties to come up with a strategy to move on from the peace process. instead of working out how to integrate communities, both Sinn Fein and the DUP have focused on shoring up their core support and every time an election rolls around, they run to their base.
The disenfranchisement has been helped by the continued demonisation of the working classes so that these communities, already feeling left behind by a process that they were never really a part of, also have very little stake in society. It's no wonder that people cling to their national identity when there's little else to cling to. This wasn't Unionists rioting about a flag. This was the working classes rioting about being constantly ignored and patronised by politicians.
When the working classes rioted in England last year, we had the usual right wing reactionary types condemning them as scum but at least that was countered by many on the left who recognised that these things happen for a reason and if we didn't address the reasons it would happen again. We don't seem to get that balance in Northern Ireland. Apparently we only care about the reasons behind the violence if we happen to agree with you.
I may have missed it, but I've yet to see Owen Jones pay any attention to Northern Ireland's working class issues, and, whilst I didn't want to single him out (as I really like his work) that wilful blindness is symptomatic of the attitude that Northern Ireland's problems aren't about class issues but religious and cultural issues. In truth, it's a combination. But if we start addressing the class issue, dealing with the religious and cultural issues will be a damn sight easier.
There is a problem in Northern Ireland and it isn't going away. At least, it won't go away just by condemning it.
EDIT: I've been rather unfair on Owen Jones. I make it sound like he should have been paying as much attention to NI as the rest of the UK but my wider point is actually that we need people with his profile making his kind of arguments in Northern Ireland.
Is there anyone who didn't expect violence to break out at Belfast City Hall last night? It was entirely predictable to all, with the apparent exception of the DUP who had no earthly idea that their rhetoric would have any effect on the mood of working class unionist communities. But I think it's safe to say that we all knew what was coming and no one was surprised. That would explain the lightening quick condemnation, from all political quarters, of those who were rioting as little more than violent scum, only interested in destruction and causing trouble. They were nothing but thugs, hoods, little shits and loyalist arseholes.
Hmm. I don't buy it. You see: to agree with that kind of thinking means I have to accept that a significant section of society just enjoys violence and doesn't really care about the issues at hand. No, you can't write the violence off to a few bad apples or isolated criminal elements. If that were true, we wouldn't be using the term riot. By it's nature, a riot needs a critical mass for it to exist and I don't really think you can use the words 'critical mass' and 'isolated elements' together without sounding like an idiot.
The extremists within the protest last night felt that they had the implicit support of the majority of the protest. Disagree if you like, but can you honestly say they would have been as violent if that weren't the case?
You can't just prattle off the insipid 'there's no justification for violence' line and expect people to suddenly agree. The reality is that people do justify violence (in fact, most people justify it to some degree) and if you want them to stop being violent you have to address the issues that they are using to justify it and not dismiss them as irrelevant and not linked.
This was never just about a flag and it was not even just about what the flag represented. It was about the abject failure of the ruling political parties to come up with a strategy to move on from the peace process. instead of working out how to integrate communities, both Sinn Fein and the DUP have focused on shoring up their core support and every time an election rolls around, they run to their base.
The disenfranchisement has been helped by the continued demonisation of the working classes so that these communities, already feeling left behind by a process that they were never really a part of, also have very little stake in society. It's no wonder that people cling to their national identity when there's little else to cling to. This wasn't Unionists rioting about a flag. This was the working classes rioting about being constantly ignored and patronised by politicians.
When the working classes rioted in England last year, we had the usual right wing reactionary types condemning them as scum but at least that was countered by many on the left who recognised that these things happen for a reason and if we didn't address the reasons it would happen again. We don't seem to get that balance in Northern Ireland. Apparently we only care about the reasons behind the violence if we happen to agree with you.
I may have missed it, but I've yet to see Owen Jones pay any attention to Northern Ireland's working class issues, and, whilst I didn't want to single him out (as I really like his work) that wilful blindness is symptomatic of the attitude that Northern Ireland's problems aren't about class issues but religious and cultural issues. In truth, it's a combination. But if we start addressing the class issue, dealing with the religious and cultural issues will be a damn sight easier.
There is a problem in Northern Ireland and it isn't going away. At least, it won't go away just by condemning it.
EDIT: I've been rather unfair on Owen Jones. I make it sound like he should have been paying as much attention to NI as the rest of the UK but my wider point is actually that we need people with his profile making his kind of arguments in Northern Ireland.
Monday, 3 December 2012
Flags? I don't care, but can see why others do.
Tonight, Belfast City Council will decide if the Union Flag, currently flying all year round, should come down except on designated days. A protest has been organised outside of Belfast City Hall by those opposed to the flag coming down at all. It should be a fairly large protest and all Unionist parties have rallied their members and supporters to the cause.
Now, as the title says, I don't care if the flag is up or down. I put any notion of loyalty to the country of my birth firmly behind my loyalty to people of the communities to which I belong, wherever they might be. However, it's not hard to understand why others feel so much for the flag. It's not so much the flag they like, but what it represents. In this instance it represents, clearly and without question, that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and governed as such.
No Loyalist or Unionist can agree with that definition of what it represents and then, in the same breath, wonder why Nationalists find the flying of the flag offensive. They're Irish Nationalists, for Pete's sake, how could they not find it offensive? The real question that should be asked (and the DUP would argue it has been) is just how offensive they find it and how much of an issue is it for them?
Dubious equality impact assessments aside, the truth is that it's not as much of an issue as Nationalist parties would like us to think. Sure, if you asked any Nationalist would he like the flag to be down, of course he'll say yes, but if you ask him if the issue of taking the flag down should be the dominant issue of the last few weeks and the next few weeks you're more than likely to get a completely different answer. It doesn't mean they don't care though.
But this issue has been bought to the forefront for political purposes, and political purposes only. There's nothing particularly wrong with that providing there's a certain amount of honesty about it. That honesty has been sadly lacking. Sinn Fein and the SDLP have been less than honest about the level of feeling from their communities about the issue (and the SDLP, in particular, have tried to play both sides on this: "you can't eat a flag so lets debate about flags") and the DUP have seen this as a perfect opportunity to demonise the Alliance party amongst unionists.
Alliance, on this issue, were always going to be losers. Their policy position is perfectly valid, but they've been played with relative ease by both Sinn Fein and the DUP, no doubt the latter looking to regain a certain parliamentary seat they've never been too happy about losing.
So, as it's clear that despite their protestations to the contrary, the parties want the debate, let's have it: let's talk about whether bringing the flag down weakens NI's place in the union (it doesn't), whether Sinn Fein are against all symbols of Britishness (they are) and whether a new civic flag, with neutral symbols will solve the problem (it won't). But, for the love of all things, can we stop with the pretence?
Now, as the title says, I don't care if the flag is up or down. I put any notion of loyalty to the country of my birth firmly behind my loyalty to people of the communities to which I belong, wherever they might be. However, it's not hard to understand why others feel so much for the flag. It's not so much the flag they like, but what it represents. In this instance it represents, clearly and without question, that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and governed as such.
No Loyalist or Unionist can agree with that definition of what it represents and then, in the same breath, wonder why Nationalists find the flying of the flag offensive. They're Irish Nationalists, for Pete's sake, how could they not find it offensive? The real question that should be asked (and the DUP would argue it has been) is just how offensive they find it and how much of an issue is it for them?
Dubious equality impact assessments aside, the truth is that it's not as much of an issue as Nationalist parties would like us to think. Sure, if you asked any Nationalist would he like the flag to be down, of course he'll say yes, but if you ask him if the issue of taking the flag down should be the dominant issue of the last few weeks and the next few weeks you're more than likely to get a completely different answer. It doesn't mean they don't care though.
But this issue has been bought to the forefront for political purposes, and political purposes only. There's nothing particularly wrong with that providing there's a certain amount of honesty about it. That honesty has been sadly lacking. Sinn Fein and the SDLP have been less than honest about the level of feeling from their communities about the issue (and the SDLP, in particular, have tried to play both sides on this: "you can't eat a flag so lets debate about flags") and the DUP have seen this as a perfect opportunity to demonise the Alliance party amongst unionists.
Alliance, on this issue, were always going to be losers. Their policy position is perfectly valid, but they've been played with relative ease by both Sinn Fein and the DUP, no doubt the latter looking to regain a certain parliamentary seat they've never been too happy about losing.
So, as it's clear that despite their protestations to the contrary, the parties want the debate, let's have it: let's talk about whether bringing the flag down weakens NI's place in the union (it doesn't), whether Sinn Fein are against all symbols of Britishness (they are) and whether a new civic flag, with neutral symbols will solve the problem (it won't). But, for the love of all things, can we stop with the pretence?
Friday, 19 October 2012
On being pro life AND pro choice and what it means.
 |
| Dawn Purvis - Programme Director of Marie Stopes in Belfast |
This may not come as a surprise but when I write, I consider the reception to whatever I write. Many of my friends are avidly pro choice, many are just as avidly pro life (please can we ignore the idiocy of the terminology for now?) and I wanted to be careful. That's not usually a consideration for me so it's an indicator of just how polarised the debate is.
Over the last week or so though, considerations for the views and opinions of the other side of the argument clearly hasn't concerned a whole host of commentators or even news outlets so I may as well weigh in. As the title says, I consider myself to be pro life and pro choice and I don't think the two positions are mutually exclusive. Why? Because I agree with many of the arguments presented by both sides. I don't agree with abortion; I consider the termination of a pregnancy at even a few weeks to be the ending of a life whilst acknowledging that the life at that point is little more than a collective of cells and tissue.
So that's my pro life position. My pro choice position is that it's not for me to make that determination for others and it's not for me to judge those who wish to have a termination. There are many valid reasons to terminate a pregnancy and I abhor the implication from some within the pro life camp that women use abortion as a method of contraception. One DUP Councillor referred to 'designer abortions' - about as awful language as you can get.
Abortion should be a last resort. It should be, as Bill Clinton once said, "safe, legal & rare". The part of me that is pro life says I should focus on how to make it rare, because making it illegal will undoubtedly make it unsafe.
So it is the pro life part of me that supports comprehensive sex education for all children in high schools; it's that part of me that supports free contraception for school children; it's the part of me that thinks girls shouldn't need their parents consent to get the pill - only their doctor's; it's the part of me that believes fully funded maternity and paternity leave for all employees should be available; it's the part of me that believes businesses and the state share a responsibility for providing affordable childcare to working parents; it's the part of me that thinks we should stop stigmatising single parents and it's the part of me that thinks adoption should be based on your ability and suitability to be a parent and not based on your sexuality.
You see: you can't be pro life unless you make preventing unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place your number one priority. You can't be pro life unless you have a plan to make continuing with a pregnancy the best option. It's not enough to just say 'oh, there's always other options and there'll be plenty of support' - you have to come up with the options, you have to provide the support.
Even after that, you have to cater for the exceptions - victims of rape & incest, genuine & serious health risks to the mother, the likelihood of stillbirth etc - but with the right approach to the issue, abortion will stay as an exception.
Anyone who thinks they'll ever be able to stop abortion from happening is deluded but if the majority of pro-life activists dedicated their time and energy into achieving the measures I outlined above, they'd soon see a huge drop in the demand for abortion and that's a more achievable goal.
Or they can continue to stand outside clinics intimidating women who desperately need help and advice. Yeah, i'm much happier with my definition of pro life.
Tuesday, 9 October 2012
Banter? No. Just plain old misogyny & sexism.
I am, on an almost daily basis, thankful for the stroke of luck that saw me conceived by western parents in a western country. Life, despite it's various challenges, is generally much better than the lives of the majority of the world. Of course, the added bonus of being born in this part of the world is that I was also born male, so my already OK life was going to be significantly more OK. However, even were I born female, this is still probably the better part of the world to be a woman, despite the continued existence of patriarchal superiority.
So, as I go about life, generally happy with my lot and pleased to be born and living where I am, I often allow myself to be unjustly pleased with how socially developed and progressive we are compared to other parts of the world - I mean, at least women can drive here, right? - but then I find out about a Facebook page such as the Holyland LAD Stories page. Then I want to fucking scream.
Like many, I suspect, I found out about the page from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19850826) and was, like many, I hope, mightily disappointed that this kind of nonsense, so prevalent in England right now, was now here in Northern Ireland. To clarify: the 'nonsense' I'm referring to is the LAD 'brand'.
The whole theme of LAD seems to be 'banter' about women and drink with a particular focus on the former. There seems to be a fondness for tales of conquests and sexual disasters where, with almost no exception, the women of the tales are referred to in exclusively derogatory terms: slag, slut, beast, ugly mare etc and their features critiqued in the bluntest and most offensive ways: lumpy tits, flabby arse, smelly fanny etc. All of this is passed off as banter.
Harmless fun, apparently. Anyone who doesn't see the comedy is a humourless, man hating feminist. Were I to go on the site and state my view, it wouldn't be long before one of the 'lads' helpfully informed me that my attitude of respecting women wouldn't make feminists have sex with me. That's how they see things; if you're not laughing with them, then there must be some hidden agenda because how could you not laugh at their incredible wit?
What I have never understood and, frankly, am never likely to, is the logic at play. It's evident that most of the contributors are fond of having sex and, from their contributions, it would appear the more sex they can have, with as many women as possible, the better. Now, I have no problem with that at all - people should have more sex, more often in my view. But these 'lads' seem to think that the best way to achieve their aim - getting laid - is to portray sex as somehow shameful, as though women who enjoy sex on the same terms as them are to be denigrated. They are sluts, slags, whores.
That's not banter. It's just downright nasty. It is sexism at best, misogyny at worst. And to top it off, it's self defeating too.
So, as I go about life, generally happy with my lot and pleased to be born and living where I am, I often allow myself to be unjustly pleased with how socially developed and progressive we are compared to other parts of the world - I mean, at least women can drive here, right? - but then I find out about a Facebook page such as the Holyland LAD Stories page. Then I want to fucking scream.
Like many, I suspect, I found out about the page from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19850826) and was, like many, I hope, mightily disappointed that this kind of nonsense, so prevalent in England right now, was now here in Northern Ireland. To clarify: the 'nonsense' I'm referring to is the LAD 'brand'.
The whole theme of LAD seems to be 'banter' about women and drink with a particular focus on the former. There seems to be a fondness for tales of conquests and sexual disasters where, with almost no exception, the women of the tales are referred to in exclusively derogatory terms: slag, slut, beast, ugly mare etc and their features critiqued in the bluntest and most offensive ways: lumpy tits, flabby arse, smelly fanny etc. All of this is passed off as banter.
Harmless fun, apparently. Anyone who doesn't see the comedy is a humourless, man hating feminist. Were I to go on the site and state my view, it wouldn't be long before one of the 'lads' helpfully informed me that my attitude of respecting women wouldn't make feminists have sex with me. That's how they see things; if you're not laughing with them, then there must be some hidden agenda because how could you not laugh at their incredible wit?
What I have never understood and, frankly, am never likely to, is the logic at play. It's evident that most of the contributors are fond of having sex and, from their contributions, it would appear the more sex they can have, with as many women as possible, the better. Now, I have no problem with that at all - people should have more sex, more often in my view. But these 'lads' seem to think that the best way to achieve their aim - getting laid - is to portray sex as somehow shameful, as though women who enjoy sex on the same terms as them are to be denigrated. They are sluts, slags, whores.
That's not banter. It's just downright nasty. It is sexism at best, misogyny at worst. And to top it off, it's self defeating too.
Wednesday, 3 October 2012
If you won't put your empty house to use, the state should.
I am constantly frustrated when people talk about a 'housing shortage' in the UK. There is no shortage of housing: there is a shortage of housing available to those who need it. It may seem a matter of semantics but it's not. The language is key in driving housing policy. If you start from a position of shortage then the most obvious and only solution is to create more housing. From that point on, ideas about bringing properties that already exist back into the active housing stock are sidelined and deemed not as important.
Within Northern Ireland there is currently no legislation that allows local authorities to properly deal with vacant and abandoned properties. I say 'properly deal' because, whilst there is some legislation, it doesn't adequately address the issue and it's solutions are not framed to meet what should be the key objective - the reintroduction of housing stock to the market.
In England & Wales the Empty Dwellings Management Order within the Housing Act allows councils to enter and take possession of (but not ownership of) vacant properties or properties that have been abandoned or fallen into disrepair. These orders go way beyond the legislation in Northern Ireland because they allow authorities to make the properties fit for purpose AND put them into the rental market.
The good thing about EDMO's is that the owner of the property still retains property rights but in a situation where the owner cannot or will not carry out the necessary repairs - often in the case of an inheritance - but the council takes on the responsibility for the property. Any repairs and maintenance carried out by councils to make the property right are recovered through subsequent rental income. Any deficit will be included as an attachment to the deeds of the property & recovered on sale.
It may just be the left wing, socialist in me, but I can't see a downside to this kind of action. The owner, who has shown no interest so far, gets to retain his ownership rights whilst at the same time, his property is maintained and possibly improved. The state, without having to build or buy houses gets to address the issue of the shortage of available housing. In addition, there is the added bonus of those properties not being a blight within communities.
I remember that only a few months ago, when the subject of vacant properties was raised in my own area, North Down, that one of the DUP's senior MLAs wrote that it was a shame to see so many vacant properties in the area and whilst he wished that something could be done, it was 'impossible' to take over the properties and fix them up. I was genuinely angry about this attitude coming from a legislator because the only thing that stops this being possible is legislation. So let's have it.
In England & Wales the Empty Dwellings Management Order within the Housing Act allows councils to enter and take possession of (but not ownership of) vacant properties or properties that have been abandoned or fallen into disrepair. These orders go way beyond the legislation in Northern Ireland because they allow authorities to make the properties fit for purpose AND put them into the rental market.
The good thing about EDMO's is that the owner of the property still retains property rights but in a situation where the owner cannot or will not carry out the necessary repairs - often in the case of an inheritance - but the council takes on the responsibility for the property. Any repairs and maintenance carried out by councils to make the property right are recovered through subsequent rental income. Any deficit will be included as an attachment to the deeds of the property & recovered on sale.
It may just be the left wing, socialist in me, but I can't see a downside to this kind of action. The owner, who has shown no interest so far, gets to retain his ownership rights whilst at the same time, his property is maintained and possibly improved. The state, without having to build or buy houses gets to address the issue of the shortage of available housing. In addition, there is the added bonus of those properties not being a blight within communities.
I remember that only a few months ago, when the subject of vacant properties was raised in my own area, North Down, that one of the DUP's senior MLAs wrote that it was a shame to see so many vacant properties in the area and whilst he wished that something could be done, it was 'impossible' to take over the properties and fix them up. I was genuinely angry about this attitude coming from a legislator because the only thing that stops this being possible is legislation. So let's have it.
Tuesday, 2 October 2012
Why I'm happy for the BNP to have the oxygen of publicity.
Well, what a wonderful few days for the media in Northern Ireland. Seasoned hacks who have been struggling to get to grips on boring issues like housing (er, is it housing for catholics or protestants?), healthcare (er, are closures in catholic areas or protestant areas?), welfare reform (er, will this affect catholics or protestants more?), were given welcome relief in the form of Parades, Racists and Homosexuals. They know what they're doing with those issues, that's for sure.
But let's focus on racists for now. In particular, the racist, sexist, homophobic leader of the racist, sexist, homophobic British National Party. Nick Griffin turned up at Stormont on Saturday during the celebrations to mark the centenary of the signing of the Ulster Covenant. As is to be expected, he then set about trying to offend as many people as he possibly could in the shortest space of time that he could making full use of Twitter's ability to reach an audience of thousands.
I'll not go into details of his particularly offensive tweets - if you want, you can get detail here - because pretty much everything he spouts is offensive in some way but I do want to talk about the reaction. It was, as ever, pleasing to see widespread condemnation for Griffin and the BNP, particularly from many members of the Orange Orders and our Unionist politicians who made it clear he was not a welcome presence (though I think referring to the covenant celebrations as being inclusive was taking it a step too far).
Following this reaction though, Stephen Nolan sought the public's views on whether he should interview Griffin on his TV show or not. This itself was a surprising development as I never imagined Stephen Nolan considered anything other than ratings when choosing his guests. I may still be right because Griffin is going to be on his show despite what was, in my own view, an emphatic NO response to Nolan's suggestion.
But I am pleased Griffin will be on. No matter how offensive you may find him, Griffin does represent a legitimate (in the most literal sense of the word) political party and it is essential that we don't make exceptions to our desire for freedom of expression for those who we disagree with, no matter how awful we perceive them to be. What is particularly important is that small political parties are given a platform to discuss their policies and inform the electorate of their agenda and ideology.
This platform doesn't need to be equal to that given to bigger parties, for obvious reasons, but there is a need for it to exist. It seems pretty obvious but I'll point it out regardless: if we don't give small parties the chance to showcase themselves then the big parties are left with a virtual monopoly within the media and that is good for no one. Of course it is the job of political parties to win the votes that warrant more and more airtime but there has to be a starting point and those that say the BNP shouldn't be given any airtime seem content to throw the baby (all small parties) out with the bathwater (the BNP).
We've had - and continue to have - this discussion in Northern Ireland about the TUV. So called progressives cry foul every time Jim Allister is on TV and the radio but those same progressives never seem to mind if Steven Agnew is on air (unless it as the expense of one of their representatives) and the desire for that kind of selective censorship makes me very uncomfortable.
It's understandable, though. The idea of Nick Griffin spouting his vile views on TV is distressing. The way we combat that, though, is by not letting him talk about the things he wants to talk about. If he wants to parade as a full service political party, then he should be taken to task on that. Ask him about Healthcare, Education and the economy and don't let him pivot to his go-to excuses such as immigration, foreign aid or human rights. I wrote some time ago that it was important that we don't just attack the BNP for being racist but that we interrogate and critique all aspects of their agenda. It's still true. They're still incoherent.
Bring them on, and let's embarrass them in front of a big an audience as we can muster. Nick Griffin, after all, likes an audience.
But let's focus on racists for now. In particular, the racist, sexist, homophobic leader of the racist, sexist, homophobic British National Party. Nick Griffin turned up at Stormont on Saturday during the celebrations to mark the centenary of the signing of the Ulster Covenant. As is to be expected, he then set about trying to offend as many people as he possibly could in the shortest space of time that he could making full use of Twitter's ability to reach an audience of thousands.
I'll not go into details of his particularly offensive tweets - if you want, you can get detail here - because pretty much everything he spouts is offensive in some way but I do want to talk about the reaction. It was, as ever, pleasing to see widespread condemnation for Griffin and the BNP, particularly from many members of the Orange Orders and our Unionist politicians who made it clear he was not a welcome presence (though I think referring to the covenant celebrations as being inclusive was taking it a step too far).
Following this reaction though, Stephen Nolan sought the public's views on whether he should interview Griffin on his TV show or not. This itself was a surprising development as I never imagined Stephen Nolan considered anything other than ratings when choosing his guests. I may still be right because Griffin is going to be on his show despite what was, in my own view, an emphatic NO response to Nolan's suggestion.
But I am pleased Griffin will be on. No matter how offensive you may find him, Griffin does represent a legitimate (in the most literal sense of the word) political party and it is essential that we don't make exceptions to our desire for freedom of expression for those who we disagree with, no matter how awful we perceive them to be. What is particularly important is that small political parties are given a platform to discuss their policies and inform the electorate of their agenda and ideology.
This platform doesn't need to be equal to that given to bigger parties, for obvious reasons, but there is a need for it to exist. It seems pretty obvious but I'll point it out regardless: if we don't give small parties the chance to showcase themselves then the big parties are left with a virtual monopoly within the media and that is good for no one. Of course it is the job of political parties to win the votes that warrant more and more airtime but there has to be a starting point and those that say the BNP shouldn't be given any airtime seem content to throw the baby (all small parties) out with the bathwater (the BNP).
We've had - and continue to have - this discussion in Northern Ireland about the TUV. So called progressives cry foul every time Jim Allister is on TV and the radio but those same progressives never seem to mind if Steven Agnew is on air (unless it as the expense of one of their representatives) and the desire for that kind of selective censorship makes me very uncomfortable.
It's understandable, though. The idea of Nick Griffin spouting his vile views on TV is distressing. The way we combat that, though, is by not letting him talk about the things he wants to talk about. If he wants to parade as a full service political party, then he should be taken to task on that. Ask him about Healthcare, Education and the economy and don't let him pivot to his go-to excuses such as immigration, foreign aid or human rights. I wrote some time ago that it was important that we don't just attack the BNP for being racist but that we interrogate and critique all aspects of their agenda. It's still true. They're still incoherent.
Bring them on, and let's embarrass them in front of a big an audience as we can muster. Nick Griffin, after all, likes an audience.
On Equal Marriage and the Political Process.
So, as anyone with even a passing interest in Politics (or has caught any of The Stephen Nolan show recently) knows, the Northern Ireland Assembly has now debated Equal Marriage and rejected it, albeit by only a small majority. Much may well be written about the debate, about certain contributors, about certain non-contributors and about homosexuality and homophobia in general. I, however, want to write about the process first because, for me at least, yesterday was a small victory for the democratic process.
That may seem an odd claim to make, considering the way that the DUP perverted (I can use that word, too, Jim Allister) democracy with their use of the petition of concern which ensured the motion could only pass if a majority of both nationalists and unionists supported it. I still stand by it though, and here is why: The motion was brought to the house by the Green Party. The smallest party in Stormont.
Yes, it wouldn't have gotten to the chamber without Sinn Fein adding their support and selecting it for debate, but I am convinced that Sinn Fein wouldn't have done so (or at least not at this point in time) where it not for directed lobbying by Steven Agnew MLA, Green Party activists, LGBT activists & voters. Remember - the Green Party tabled this motion last February and it sat there, waiting for others to support it until the Assembly term ended. When Sinn Fein started their campaign of getting councils to vote on motions in support of Equal Marriage, it gave us an opportunity to say to Sinn Fein "well, if you'll debate it at council, why not at the Assembly". To their credit, they clearly listened and did just that.
The motion from Steven Agnew came about after the 2011 Green Party conference. As is the norm, motions were proposed by members and one of those motions was that the Green Party 'vigorously campaign and, where possible, vote in support of Equal Marriage'. The motion was overwhelmingly carried and, as such, became policy. Policy that became a motion tabled in the Assembly. Policy which saw us put the question to Sinn Fein. Policy which eventually secured the debate and vote in the legislature responsible.
So consider that. One member, from the smallest party in the Assembly, brings a motion to their party conference and what follows is a process that ends up with that motion debated (and nearly passed) at the highest level. Now consider what would have happened had the motion been something not as controversial, nor as divisive. That motion may well have been passed by the Assembly. The Executive would then have to consider how to respond to will of the Assembly, and that may result in the eventual change that was sought.
All from one member, of one party, with one motion.
No, it's not always easy, but if you have the will and you believe in your cause, it is still possible to effect change, even in our form of democracy.
That may seem an odd claim to make, considering the way that the DUP perverted (I can use that word, too, Jim Allister) democracy with their use of the petition of concern which ensured the motion could only pass if a majority of both nationalists and unionists supported it. I still stand by it though, and here is why: The motion was brought to the house by the Green Party. The smallest party in Stormont.
Yes, it wouldn't have gotten to the chamber without Sinn Fein adding their support and selecting it for debate, but I am convinced that Sinn Fein wouldn't have done so (or at least not at this point in time) where it not for directed lobbying by Steven Agnew MLA, Green Party activists, LGBT activists & voters. Remember - the Green Party tabled this motion last February and it sat there, waiting for others to support it until the Assembly term ended. When Sinn Fein started their campaign of getting councils to vote on motions in support of Equal Marriage, it gave us an opportunity to say to Sinn Fein "well, if you'll debate it at council, why not at the Assembly". To their credit, they clearly listened and did just that.
The motion from Steven Agnew came about after the 2011 Green Party conference. As is the norm, motions were proposed by members and one of those motions was that the Green Party 'vigorously campaign and, where possible, vote in support of Equal Marriage'. The motion was overwhelmingly carried and, as such, became policy. Policy that became a motion tabled in the Assembly. Policy which saw us put the question to Sinn Fein. Policy which eventually secured the debate and vote in the legislature responsible.
So consider that. One member, from the smallest party in the Assembly, brings a motion to their party conference and what follows is a process that ends up with that motion debated (and nearly passed) at the highest level. Now consider what would have happened had the motion been something not as controversial, nor as divisive. That motion may well have been passed by the Assembly. The Executive would then have to consider how to respond to will of the Assembly, and that may result in the eventual change that was sought.
All from one member, of one party, with one motion.
No, it's not always easy, but if you have the will and you believe in your cause, it is still possible to effect change, even in our form of democracy.
Friday, 28 September 2012
Sinn Fein are their own worst enemy on Unification.
Something that has bugged me for a long time is the odd way in which Sinn Fein are regarded as a successful political party in Northern Ireland (or the North, for any readers of that persuasion). Like many things in life, it just seems to be an accepted and unquestioned fact that Sinn Fein are a brilliant political machine and other parties have much to learn from them. Well, I don't accept it and I am going to question it.
It could be argued that the objective of any political party is to be electorally successful and to set the agenda/implement policy according to their proscribed ideology, with most people agreeing that the two things go hand in hand - you can't very well set the agenda and implement policy if you are not electorally successful - and as such it is one combined objective.
What often happens though is that parties, politicians and voters alike believe that by achieving the former, the latter will follow. Thus, the combined objective of winning and then implementing policy becomes two very separate objectives and winning becomes primary above all else. What this means is that where there is a conflict of policy, parties - often unconsciously - shape their decisions based on what is best for the primary objective and so ideology is compromised.
There is no doubt that in terms of organisation and activism, Sinn Fein lead the way in Northern Ireland. They are professional, slick and entirely focused on the result which is more often than not a favourable one. Their structure and the way they operate is definitely something other parties can learn from. But that doesn't mean they are successful as a political party, it just means they know how to organise and know how to secure their vote.
Sinn Fein have to be measured - like any other party - against how successful they are in convincing the public (or more specifically: the electorate) that their vision is the right vision. On that measurement, it is clear that Sinn Fein have failed. They have only themselves to blame.
Sinn Fein are supposedly a party of Irish Nationalism. A party whose main and primary objective is the unification of the island of Ireland as a nation of equals. If this is indeed what Sinn Fein want above all else then they seriously need to re-think their strategy and start asking themselves some very difficult questions:
From everything they do, Sinn Fein make it clear that Irish Unity is only appealing with certain caveats: Unionists not only have to stop being unionists, they have to accept Sinn Fein's vision of how things should be. They have to accept former terrorists as their leaders; they have to reject their culture & their history; they have to reject their ideology (no room for right wing minded people in Sinn Fein's Ireland).
If I was a Sinn Fein strategist, my starting point would be "what do we do to convince Unionists to abandon their unionism". It's the only way that the goal of unification can be achieved and as such, all other considerations - prisoners, the IRA, anti-monarchism - are where you make the compromises. Sinn Fein don't do that. They put people like Mary McCardle into senior positions and they promote ex terrorists through their political ranks so the Assembly is led by one of the most notorious ex terrorists.
Sinn Fein can justify these kinds of decisions - and, if I'm honest, I tend to agree with much of their justification - but what they don't do is consider the damage it does to their supposedly primary objective. Why, when appointing McCardle did no one in their strategy team say "hold on, how does this make us look to Unionists?" and put a stop on the appointment?
I am all too aware of the importance of remembering history and considering what happened in context but that is a luxury Sinn Fein can not afford. If Irish unity is ever going to happen, Sinn Fein need to accept that sacrifices will have to be made - people's noses will have to be put out of joint and it's likely that people who do the right thing will suffer personally (just ask David Trimble & the UUP). The problem is that Sinn Fein want those sacrifices to be made by Unionists, not them.
I've little doubt that members and activists within Sinn Fein will disagree with the entirety of this post but before they do they should ask themselves these questions:
That's the simplest measure I can think of to gauge Sinn Fein's success as a political party and on that measure, they have failed quite spectacularly.
It could be argued that the objective of any political party is to be electorally successful and to set the agenda/implement policy according to their proscribed ideology, with most people agreeing that the two things go hand in hand - you can't very well set the agenda and implement policy if you are not electorally successful - and as such it is one combined objective.
What often happens though is that parties, politicians and voters alike believe that by achieving the former, the latter will follow. Thus, the combined objective of winning and then implementing policy becomes two very separate objectives and winning becomes primary above all else. What this means is that where there is a conflict of policy, parties - often unconsciously - shape their decisions based on what is best for the primary objective and so ideology is compromised.
There is no doubt that in terms of organisation and activism, Sinn Fein lead the way in Northern Ireland. They are professional, slick and entirely focused on the result which is more often than not a favourable one. Their structure and the way they operate is definitely something other parties can learn from. But that doesn't mean they are successful as a political party, it just means they know how to organise and know how to secure their vote.
Sinn Fein have to be measured - like any other party - against how successful they are in convincing the public (or more specifically: the electorate) that their vision is the right vision. On that measurement, it is clear that Sinn Fein have failed. They have only themselves to blame.
Sinn Fein are supposedly a party of Irish Nationalism. A party whose main and primary objective is the unification of the island of Ireland as a nation of equals. If this is indeed what Sinn Fein want above all else then they seriously need to re-think their strategy and start asking themselves some very difficult questions:
- What's more important: Irish Unity or remembering the IRA?
- What's more important: Irish Unity or opposition to The Queen & the UK?
- What's more important: Irish Unity or holding West Belfast?
- What's more important: Irish Unity or republican prisoners being part of the process?
From everything they do, Sinn Fein make it clear that Irish Unity is only appealing with certain caveats: Unionists not only have to stop being unionists, they have to accept Sinn Fein's vision of how things should be. They have to accept former terrorists as their leaders; they have to reject their culture & their history; they have to reject their ideology (no room for right wing minded people in Sinn Fein's Ireland).
If I was a Sinn Fein strategist, my starting point would be "what do we do to convince Unionists to abandon their unionism". It's the only way that the goal of unification can be achieved and as such, all other considerations - prisoners, the IRA, anti-monarchism - are where you make the compromises. Sinn Fein don't do that. They put people like Mary McCardle into senior positions and they promote ex terrorists through their political ranks so the Assembly is led by one of the most notorious ex terrorists.
Sinn Fein can justify these kinds of decisions - and, if I'm honest, I tend to agree with much of their justification - but what they don't do is consider the damage it does to their supposedly primary objective. Why, when appointing McCardle did no one in their strategy team say "hold on, how does this make us look to Unionists?" and put a stop on the appointment?
I am all too aware of the importance of remembering history and considering what happened in context but that is a luxury Sinn Fein can not afford. If Irish unity is ever going to happen, Sinn Fein need to accept that sacrifices will have to be made - people's noses will have to be put out of joint and it's likely that people who do the right thing will suffer personally (just ask David Trimble & the UUP). The problem is that Sinn Fein want those sacrifices to be made by Unionists, not them.
I've little doubt that members and activists within Sinn Fein will disagree with the entirety of this post but before they do they should ask themselves these questions:
- Do you need Unionists to achieve your goal of Irish Unity?
- Do Unionists endorse Sinn Fein?
That's the simplest measure I can think of to gauge Sinn Fein's success as a political party and on that measure, they have failed quite spectacularly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)