East Belfast Diary

Top ten books from 2011

2012-01-22T21:13:00.000Z

One of the great things about our holiday in Australia was the larger number of bookshops, even though books are more expensive than here. We would come across them in the kind of suburban areas which can’t or won’t sustain a bookshop in the UK or Ireland, as well as in city centres. Glenelg had a couple. So did Balmain. We visited Gertrude and Alice in Bondi and were pleased it survives, even though it’s now more of a café with a bookstore attached than the other way around. We also discovered the wonderful Readings bookshop chain in Melbourne, thanks to our friend who practically lives in the Carlton branch.

So this got me thinking again about whether books really are over. It certainly didn’t look like it on the other side of the world. I saw very few e-readers, perhaps because it was holiday time or perhaps because they haven’t quite caught on over there. Friends said it wasn’t that great, as two chains (Borders and Angus & Robertson) had recently gone out of business. But the most striking feature was the number of independent bookshops or small-scale chains. Clearly it’s still possible to make a living out of selling books in Australia.

And of course holidays are always a chance to catch up on the non-work reading. For this post, I didn’t think I’d be able to find ten ‘top’ books from 2011. It’s been a busy year, but I have been able to produce a top seven, two that are irritating but worthy of comment, and a cookery book which some may regard as cheating:

The Songlines by Bruce Chatwin (Vintage Classics, first published 1987): The first irritating one. Begins well – great writing and lots of anecdotes about the outback and Aboriginal culture in the 20^th century (check out the hilarious Qantas Dreaming episode), but degenerates into a series of notes about his experiences with other nomadic people. No doubt intends to make a connection but it doesn’t work. So read the first two-thirds.

Room by Emma Donoghue (Picador, 2010): A controversial book which I loved. Incredible how the author can sustain the child’s narrative whilst also conveying the perspective of the other characters, most particularly the struggle for survival by the mother in the first half of the story.

River Cottage Veg Everyday by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall (Bloomsbury, 2011): The TV series was required viewing in our vegetarian household, simply because it was completely relevant – that was, until the slaughterhouse scene. We know where meat comes from, Hugh. The cookery book is fab, though.

The Memory of Love by Aminatta Forna (Bloomsbury, 2010): Set in Sierra Leone, the story of two love triangles set in different time periods and woven together very skilfully. The central character, English psychologist Adrian, allows exploration of the consequences of poverty and civil war through the eyes of an outsider.

Freedom by Jonathan Franzen (Fourth Estate, 2010): Expresses the complexity of relationships over time in a way almost (but not quite) worthy of George Eliot. Everyone behaves badly and no-one is the villain. The final few chapters will be most appreciated by those who have come through the trench warfare of a long relationship. Let down in places by the writing style.

Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet by Tim Jackson (Earthscan, 2009): Verging on a work book but I’d like to think I would have read it anyway. Ed Miliband has, apparently, although you wouldn’t know it from Labour’s economic policy. Explains clearly why continuous growth is impossible and how a sustainable economy can be achieved. And, unfortunately, shows why it’s unlikely to happen as it requires both personal restraint and political long-sightedness. The second irritating contribution to the list – but worth reading..

Let the Great World Spin by Colum McCann (Bloomsbury, 2009): New York in 1974 - a vivid kaleidoscope of characters and events set against the backdrop of the real life tightrope walk between the Twin Towers.

The Breaking of Eggs by Jim Powell (Phoenix, 2011): If, in your sixties, you have to reappraise your life, is it devastating or redemptive? An overlooked novel about how when the facts change, we have to change our minds.

Inheritance by Nicholas Shakespeare (Vintage, 2011): A feckless young man inherits a fortune by mistake and learns about love, misunderstandings and manipulation. Often very funny and a good read.

Just Kids by Patti Smith (Bloomsbury, 2010): I’ve written about this one before. A wonderful memoir.

The importance of holidays

2012-01-14T13:51:00.000Z

Glenelg

I’ve been back from Australia for nearly a week now, with jetlag and work having prevented me from doing much else. Fortunately, Nick has been able to post a couple of accounts of our brilliant holiday.

Highlights for me included: meeting friends in Glenelg and Sydney, and being hosted by our friend KJ in Melbourne; walking Holdfast Bay from Glenelg to Brighton; re-acquaintance with Sydney Ferries; the walk from Coogee to Bondi; new discoveries Balmain and Balmoral Beach; Melbourne’s funky Carlton area and the marvellous Ian Potter Centre; Bushrangers Bay on the Mornington Peninsula; and the pleasure of sunlight and warmth in the middle of winter.

I read seven books, including the bizarre and fascinating ‘The Songlines’ by Bruce Chatwin, and ‘Freedom’ by Jonathan Franzen, which is a great novel but would perhaps not be fully appreciated by younger readers.

Sydney CBD from the ferry

It was the most refreshing break I’ve had for years – but why?

Most important was the length of time. In three weeks, it’s possible to have both a proper rest and to do interesting things.

Also, I would usually take some work with

me on holiday, which would never get done.

This time, I didn’t even pretend, but planned

for a complete break.

Minimum access to the internet, including no

checking of work e-mails, was strangely

soothing. A basic Aussie number mobile

phone sufficed for communication with

Manly ferry and the Harbour Bridge

friends and for Christmas messages home.

Finally, going to places we already knew removed a lot of stress, and in the least familiar location (Melbourne) we had the luxury of staying with a friend.

So in future it’s long holidays in the sun for me, travelling light and without much technology in tow.

Unfortunately, long holidays require longer periods of work in between, so for now it’s back to porridge.....

Coping with diversity

2011-12-02T22:38:00.001Z

Christmas is not exactly turning out to be the season of goodwill at Belfast City Council. This week, we had the Lord Mayor Niall O Donnghaile refusing to present a Duke of Edinburgh’s award to a young Army cadet. Although I know Sinn Féin always have an agenda and like to push the envelope, I wonder if there may be more to this story as it does seem particularly inept.

Then we have the Irish Language row. A donated sign saying Nollaig Shona Duit will be hung outside City Hall this year - as well as the usual one in English, in case you wondered. A democratic decision of the Council. And of course some people object.

So what do these episodes tell us about the best way to acknowledge and live with diversity?

There are three options for societies to deal with strongly held issues of identity, in circumstances when one person’s self-expression is another person’s taking of offence. The first is to ban everything. This leads to situations where people don’t feel able to talk about a wide range of topics in case someone in the room, from a particular identity, is upset – or worse, thinks the speaker is racist, sexist, homophobic and so on. Or in our case, sectarian. It might be unfair, but I think of Canadians as being rather like that.

The second option is careful balance, usually imposed by the state. This is us here in Norn Iron. I gather that when Belfast City Hall reopened, a committee made decisions to balance the placing of the building’s historic artefacts in order to reflect the histories of both communities, and if I remember rightly also to include other identities. Although I value the Larkin window (that’s my culture, thank you BCC), I do think this approach is historically incorrect. City Hall has been a unionist environment for most of its history and now it is not. To be reminded of that makes the achievement of the present day more significant, not less.

The third choice is to let it rip. I always think of this as the United States approach. You express your identity, I’ll express mine, and the price of being able to do so is to tolerate the other. You wear your Celtic top, I wear my Rangers top, and no-one gets hurt. Or in my case, I’ll enjoy bilingual Christmas greetings and still appreciate the Covenant Table where my relatives signed the thing in 1912. I know, we’re not quite there yet, but in my opinion it’s far better than either pretending difference doesn’t exist, or trying to control it.

So what about the two incidents in the news? If we want to move towards a genuinely tolerant society, the Mayor would have presented all the Duke of Edinburgh Awards, but perhaps with the odd comhghairdeas leat or maith thu thrown in. And the people of Belfast would be wished a Merry Christmas not only in English and Irish, but in many other languages as well.

Against tokenism

2011-11-23T20:17:00.001Z

Recently I’ve been finding myself in more and more situations where I’ve ended up raging against tokenism – specifically, given my own situation, token women. For one who is a feminist to my bones, it’s uncomfortable. However, my experiences in politics and at work have led me to conclude that ‘reserved places’ may tick the boxes for organisations but do nothing for women. Indeed, tokenism may well be detrimental to our interests. Here’s why.

First, it’s common for some to say that women occupying reserved places would not have got there in open competition. Of course this varies. But it does happen, in circumstances when we are called upon to make up the numbers in roles for which we are inexperienced and perhaps unsuitable.

Not only do we sometimes find ourselves outside our comfort zone, which can be dealt with over time, but what if we want to use our new position to actually (horror) bring about change? We may be surprised at the reaction. We may have been welcomed into our token role, not realising that the deal was ‘don’t rock the boat’. But then, should we want to speak up, one of two things are likely to happen. We may get ignored. Or we’ll lose the argument – because tokens are always in the minority.

Then there’s the time and energy involved in being a token. I’ve written about this before, in relation to women and politics:

Before you know it are on every committee going, simply because you are female. If women are in a minority in a particular constituency or ward party, but party rules insist that, say, half the officer places must go to women, then there is pressure to do more.

This is a serious problem in my political party, because the reserved places system is imposed at UK level and bears no relation to the actual number of women active in the constituency. We have to find four women for our Executive Committee; two of the four officer positions must be held by women; and on alternative years, our conference delegate must be female. It’s not easy.

However, I think it’s worse at work – and I’m talking about various jobs I’ve done over the years, not just my experience of several universities. Has anyone seriously thought about the time commitment it takes to sit on all those appointment panels, committees, mentoring, training days and so on? Even when there’s no formal reserved place, the cry will go up ‘we don’t have any women....’ I suggest that all this activity takes time away from the type of work that actually contributes towards progression within an organisation, rather than always being out of the office on yet another ‘equalities’ commitment.

But am I just being selfish by pulling up the ladder and preventing other women from having the same opportunities as myself? I don’t think so, because I don’t think tokenism is the way to make real change. Sure, you’ll get a few more female faces around the place – remember Blair’s babes? This is what some of them had to say ten years later. Tokenism gets you in, but it doesn’t get you much further, because it doesn’t actually change the culture of an organisation by tackling everyday episodes of sexism.

So what would I do instead? Women need to work together on skills development, critical mass, and solidarity. Skills development so that we are capable of competing for positions on offer; critical mass so that we encourage other women to join us; and solidarity so that once we are wherever we want to be, we support each other. These can be formalised, for example the Queen’s Gender Initiative, or can be the result of a strong group of women organising themselves.

My own experience has been that female solidarity is hard to come by – despite a few shining exceptions. Sometimes women genuinely don’t have the same interests. In other cases, there just doesn’t seem to be the political will. But one thing’s for certain. Tokenism doesn’t lead to real change for women because it doesn’t alter the balance of power between men and women. Maybe that’s why it’s so widespread.

An invitation

2011-11-05T19:52:00.001Z

Blogging has had to take a back seat recently given work, the Belfast Festival and other odds and ends such as a trip to the South to canvass in the Dublin West bye election. It’s likely that this hiatus will continue for a few months. But I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to comment on the SDLP leadership result today.

I’m very pleased with the win by Alasdair McDonnell, because it confirms the SDLP’s identity as a nationalist party first and foremost, and at best puts on hold the more innovative approach of Conall McDevitt. However, even McDevitt’s proposals did not seek to move the SDLP away from Irish nationalism towards the much needed cross-community democratic socialist electoral representation which Northern Ireland still lacks. I think it’s now reasonable to conclude that this representation will not come via the SDLP. Not now, and - despite the ‘McDevitt next time’ fightback that has already begun on Twitter - not ever.

So I’d like to suggest that the time may have come for some SDLP members to think about joining an actual cross-community democratic socialist party. Both the Irish and UK Labour parties allow dual membership, and in fact it’s possible to be in all three, given our common membership of the Socialist International. SDLP members, therefore, need not leave their current party but may begin to participate in a Labour party as well. I understand that some may prefer to join the Irish Labour Party, however they should bear in mind that after Irish Labour’s clear decision in 2008 not to stand candidates in the North, the residual membership consists of those who are dedicated solely to campaigning activity – as you might expect.

In contrast, the UK Labour NEC has agreed the start of discussions with the SDLP and Irish Labour about the way forward for democratic socialist electoral representation in Northern Ireland, in accordance with the recommendation in the Refounding Labour to Win document.

SDLP members may have the inaccurate perception that UK Labour Party members in Northern Ireland are all unionists. Not so, as Labour’s submission to the Refounding Labour consultation process stated:

Labour members in Northern Ireland want to see the development of anti-sectarian politics that can challenge nationalist and unionist polarities for the betterment of the whole of our society. Members do not believe that anti-sectarian politics can wipe out the past in Northern Ireland, but we do have a vision that can re-write the future. Some Labour members are unionists and some are nationalists, some have no strong views either way and others feel strongly that their identity and heritage is both British and Irish. The Labour Party’s policy UK-wide is to support the constitutional mechanism put in place for deciding this issue in the Good Friday/ Belfast Agreement and the 1998 Northern Ireland Act and we do not differ from this. However, we believe the current political priority should be uniting the communities here and now for a shared future.

UK Labour’s membership in Northern Ireland is growing and all new members are welcome. No-one in UK Labour is going to make it difficult or uncomfortable for more nationalists to join and participate in the party. However, members are expected to accept and respect the fact that others may hold different views on the border, and that the subject may sometimes be debated in that spirit. I’m sure SDLP members on the ‘red’ wing of the party would have no problem with that. After all, surely the next stage for politics here is to have these debates in the same room rather than sneering at each other from different sides of the 'community designation' benches.

Refounding Labour in Northern Ireland (2): Have we been conned?

2011-09-22T21:55:00.000+01:00

I am unashamedly parochial about the Refounding Labour organisational review process. I can’t afford to be anything else. Labour Party members in Britain may be getting exercised about various aspects of the final report, to go to Conference next week, or indeed about the ‘one document one vote’ approach, as amendments will not be taken.

Labour in Northern Ireland just wants the opportunity to do what political parties are meant to do - stand in elections.

Accordingly, the submission from the Northern Ireland CLP was based around this one point, as set out in my previous post. The question now is: after Refounding Labour, is our aim more likely to be achieved?

The starting point was unpropitious, as the consultation document didn’t mention Northern Ireland at all. Even allowing for the fact that Labour doesn’t really get devolution as yet, that was tough. However, it probably helped to produce the thorough and considered response, as nobody likes to be ignored. The draft was the subject of a long and lovely discussion at a members’ meeting, after which some changes to the response were actually made – in other words, a real democratic process and a tribute to all who were involved.

So, after all the lobbying and NEC discussions, what’s in the final report? On page 17, we have:

‘The growth of party membership in Northern Ireland is very welcome and we note a few submissions have been received, including a submission from our NI CLP, that have requested the party agree to stand candidates for election in Northern Ireland.

Recommendation: The party will continue discussions with our NI CLP, and enter into discussions with our sister parties the SDLP and Irish Labour Party’.

Some may say: is that it? Exactly how much better off are you now?

I disagree. Just suppose the report had recommended standing for election. What would have been the first thing we would have had to do? We would have had to ‘enter into discussions with our sister parties the SDLP and Irish Labour Party’. With the SDLP because it does contain Labour-minded individuals, and we would have had to see if we could find any common ground, or, if not, perhaps to persuade some to join us. The SDLP is, in any case, currently at a crossroads with its very interesting leadership campaign. The outcome will be very important for the direction of democratic socialist politics in Northern Ireland. We cannot and should not ignore the SDLP’s membership of the Socialist International, but there might be a question about how long that membership will continue.

And discussions with Irish Labour would be needed because our entry into electoral politics would change the dynamics of Labour representation on this island. We would want to have a close and mutually supportive relationship, and align policy as much as possible. In my personal opinion I’d like to try persuade Irish Labour to change their minds about putting up their own candidates North of the border and run a joint campaign on a common manifesto.

So I see no harm in strengthening the case by having these discussions before a final decision is made. Of course, either or both the other parties may refuse to talk, saying they are happy with the status quo, in which case we know where we stand.

Labour members will discuss the situation in mid-October and of course there will be different opinions. The other side of the argument is that we’ve been conned. As Andy Burnham said during the last leadership campaign, the decision to stand in elections should be for Labour members in Northern Ireland. Talks can go on for years – as they already have. But given that the next elections we’d want to contest are in 2015, or possibly 2014 for the European Parliament, I think it’s worth a thorough and comradely exploration of how to get it right.

After all, the reason for standing in elections is to give the Labour movement a voice, in the interests of working people, in order to try to improve their lives (or, sadly, to mitigate damage) at a very difficult time. We need to find the most appropriate way of doing so in a changing but still divided society.

Refounding Labour in Northern Ireland (1): The Argument

2011-09-22T19:02:00.000+01:00

The Refounding Labour organisational review will be debated and voted upon at the UK Labour Party Conference next week. Here is a summary of the Northern Ireland CLP’s submission.

The full version is available here and is worth reading if you are interested in the details of the argument – in particular, I would urge those who think the Party is anti-SDLP to read pages 3 -4 .

A real Shared Future: why the Labour Party should stand for elections in Northern Ireland

Submission to the Refounding Labour organisational review by the Northern Ireland CLP

Our submission is the response of the Northern Ireland Constituency Labour Party to the Labour Party’s organisational review, Refounding Labour, and argues that the Labour Party should stand for elections in Northern Ireland.

The argument has three strands.

1. It is the final stage in achieving a fully functioning Labour movement in Northern Ireland. As has been said many times by senior Labour figures, there should be no ‘no go’ areas for the Labour Party. In a democracy, a prospective Party of Government should seek a mandate across the UK, including Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland has a vibrant Labour moment including 350 paid-up Labour Party members, almost 260,000 trade union members, mostly in affiliated unions, and 32,000 trade union members contracting in to pay the political levy. Northern Ireland has the highest density of trade union membership of the four UK jurisdictions – and no other party in Northern Ireland has a structural link with the trade unions
Party members participate in an active Constituency Labour Party, assist in British and Irish Labour election campaigns, attend Conference and are active in the National Policy Forum. Standing for election is the last piece in the jigsaw.
Members also participate in their trade unions, socialist societies, the Co-operative Party, the Fabian Society, Labour Students and the Party of European Socialists activists’ network.
Northern Ireland’s Labour Party members are involved in a wide range of civil society organisations which seek to influence policy both at regional and UK level through lobbying.
It has been argued that Labour cannot usurp the SDLP’s position as the only Northern Ireland member of the Socialist International. However, fifteen countries have two SI parties as members, and one has three.
Although Labour members would have respect for the historical role of the SDLP and for many individual SDLP members, the SDLP is currently unsuitable to represent the Labour movement because (i) it has no structural connection with the trade unions, and (ii) its ‘nationalist’ community designation in the Northern Ireland Assembly prevents it from developing truly cross-community, anti-sectarian politics based on economic and social issues rather than on territorial position.

2. The Labour Party can fill the political vacuum caused by the lack of a cross-community, anti-sectarian democratic socialist political party. Labour in Northern Ireland provides a voice that is un-mediated by community divisions, a voice that can develop policies that will encourage sharing in a divided society and build a future without the fear of sectarian tensions.

Political identity and electoral behaviour in Northern Ireland is often erroneously presented as a simple territorial cleavage between unionism and nationalism. However, this disregards opinions on social and economic issues, and other aspects of political identity such as class and gender.
A review of the statistical evidence has revealed a political vacuum that could be filled by Labour. For example:

43% of the population consider themselves to be neither unionist nor nationalist; and
in 2005, around 70 percent of people who didn’t vote said they had sympathy with the statement that ‘I would have voted if there was a strong non-sectarian party’.

Under the circumstances it is not surprising that turnout at elections is declining, and public confidence in the governance of the region is low. In such a climate of dissatisfaction and frustrated aspirations, Labour has to act.
Labour Party politics can offer a home to those disillusioned voters and to many more voters who simply put up with current parties because there is no viable, non-sectarian alternative. We believe that the best ‘cross community’ decision-making takes place within parties rather than between them.

3. We have the capacity to build our case around the Labour values of social justice, equality of opportunity, strength of community and rights matched with responsibilities. The Labour Party in Northern Ireland accepts the duty to stand for Labour values, to use those values to promote prosperity and a shared future, and to represent the wider Labour Movement politically.

The Labour Party in Northern Ireland seeks to uphold Labour values in the context of a society trying to move beyond sectarian division and find a common ground based on values, rights and responsibilities we all share. We seek a new political paradigm that is not dependent on territorial politics and thus contributes to healing the divisions of the past.
The people of Northern Ireland want politics based on everyday issues such as crime, education, health and the economy – especially at the present time of economic uncertainty and constraint.
We can use our solid base of 350 members, plus substantial support in the wider Labour movement, to build electoral support through standing good, local candidates and seeking votes from all sections of the community.

The next stage of Northern Ireland’s ‘peace process’ is to work towards a genuinely shared society which acknowledges the importance of history but refuses to be held back by it. Only Labour can fulfil the role of a non-sectarian democratic socialist party in which all voters can have confidence.

The red-faced Orange

2011-09-15T22:00:00.000+01:00

Over the years I have shocked many friends and acquaintances with my forthright opposition to the Orange Order and the scorn I have poured on Orangefest and the like. I think it’s sometimes been perceived as a failing on my part rather than a reflection on the organisation itself. But I have continued to insist that the Order as currently constituted cannot function as a non-sectarian organisation, taking part in jolly cross-community events funded by the taxpayer.

As Dominic Bryan says in his book ‘Orange Parades’ (2000):

There are a series of laws governing the relationship an Orangeman should have with members of the Roman Catholic Church. Marriage to a Roman Catholic and attendance at a Roman Catholic service can both lead to a member being expelled. In practice the use of these rules tends to vary among lodges. On more than one occasion, debate has taken place...over a member who has attended the funeral of a Catholic (p.106).

Bryan gives the example of a previous case which caused criticism, when David Trimble attended the funeral of Catholic victims of the Omagh bomb in 1998.

And now, the St Simon’s Church Total Abstinence LOL 821 from Sandy Row has caused red faces (nearly) all round by its utterly disgusting complaint about the conduct of two Orange Order members, also senior members of the Ulster Unionist Party, for attending the funeral of Constable Ronan Kerr, who was assassinated by dissident republicans last April. Initial coverage implied that particular offence had been taken because the men had attended the funeral mass, and some comments on web sites and the radio distinguished between the two, saying that it was fine to pay respects at a funeral but not to attend the mass. When you are in a hole, it’s really best to stop digging, and think about what you are doing looks like from outside the hole.

It is important to remember that the complaint has come from only one Lodge out of 1,200. It may, of course, be prompted by an ulterior motive connected with party politics within unionism. It is becoming increasingly clear that the complaint is not supported by many Orange members and Lodges. However, the situation was able to arise because the organisation’s membership qualifications are not limited to supporting Protestantism, which I think can be justified, but include the denigration of another religion, which cannot.

Hopefully, the incident will prompt debate about how that might change in future. Until then, the Orange Order has nothing to contribute to the new Northern Ireland.

Sexism at 40

2011-09-06T19:46:00.002+01:00

Like many people here, the Europa Hotel holds special memories for me. I visited Belfast for the first time (as an adult) in 1995, to attend a conference in the city centre - including a fair amount of time spent in the Europa's first floor bar. The trip set in train a series of events that led finally to a permanent move from London to Belfast.

Like others, again, I can name all the other Hastings Hotels, have visited some of them (with variable results, I must say), and feel it’s important to support a local business in a highly competitive industry. Or rather, I did until today, when my Belfast Telegraph Facebook page presented me with some unwelcome news.

A documentary has been made about the history of the Europa. Two launch screenings were held yesterday, and someone had to think of a promotional gimmick. Because of course no-one would be interested in the fascinating history of the hotel in its own right.

I can understand the line of reasoning. The Europa is 40 years old. So let’s cast our minds back to, er, 1971. What was life like then? Well, people were murdering each other outside the hotel’s front door, but we won’t dwell on that. Homosexuality was illegal, but perhaps rather poor taste to mention it. The year’s pop charts were topped by, amongst others, Rod Stewart, T.Rex, and Slade. Not another seventies pop star lookalike event, please.

So what else has changed? Oh yes, the position of women. In 1971, something called women’s liberation was just getting going. Women were starting to protest against being treated as sex objects. Didn’t they burn their bras? Well, we can't have any of that sort of thing. Hang on a minute, wasn’t there a Penthouse nightclub in the Europa itself? Maybe we can run with this.... and it gets us some lovely girls....

As the Belfast Telegraph – no stranger itself to lovely girls – put it:

Scantily clad models donned the traditional ‘Playboy Bunny’ inspired outfits to welcome the hundreds of guests with a 1970s-themed evening.

But what’s this? Apparently:

The afternoon screening was introduced by Enterprise Minister Arlene Foster with the evening show launched by the city’s Lord Mayor, Niall O'Donnghaile.

That’s one of our best female politicians, a role model for younger women; and Belfast’s first citizen, member of a party that will no doubt have something to say about women’s rights at its Ard Fheis this weekend. Shame on you both, and shame on Hastings Hotels for failing to understand that there are some aspects of the 1970s that are better left in the past.

Burn the black suit

2011-08-31T22:01:00.003+01:00

Autumn is here, and that means a wardrobe clearout, a huge bag of castoffs to the charity shop, and a panic about not having anything to wear. As inevitable as the leaves falling off the trees.

But this year has been different. One of the rejects was a suit. My only suit.

I’m lucky that I don’t have to dress very formally for my job. Neat and tidy, yes – contrary to the stereotype of the dishevelled and absent-minded academic. But when the suit started to look a bit dated, I realised I’d only been wearing it two or three times a year and could well do without it. A couple of jackets would cover the odd formal meeting, conference or graduation, and nowadays I might even be able to get away with a cardigan.

And when else, outside work, would I wear a suit? Funerals and job interviews. Even the funeral dress code is getting more casual, so that no longer applies. I don’t intend to move jobs again before I retire but if needs must then I wouldn’t want one which rejected me for not wearing a suit to the interview.

It’s quite a culture shock, though. I haven’t been without at least one suit since the mid 1990s, when I got my first full-time job in local government and thought I’d better smarten up. Until this year it would have been unthinkable to ditch them. I clung to my formal clothing even after I’d left local government and become a PhD student and then a postdoc, when there was very little need to look smart. On the basis that you never know.

Something has changed over the past couple of years. It may be the economic times we live in, or perhaps just fashion, but dress codes have become more relaxed, especially for women. It’s become acceptable at work to replace your dark, ill-fitting and drab suit with colourful jackets and cardigans, scarves and jewellery, and still to be taken seriously. That’s a welcome development for those of us who don’t see why we should have to dress like men in order to get equality and respect at work. But equal pay to go with my red cardigan would be nice.

A town like Maidenhead

2011-08-27T09:19:00.002+01:00

I enjoyed the recent BBC series Town, presented by Nicholas Crane and including Ludlow, Perth, Scarborough and Totnes. You can catch the final two episodes on iPlayer if you’re quick. Crane made a persuasive case for the quality of life in towns and gave some great examples of their resilience in the face of economic and social change.

There was one quite understandable flaw, however. His four town were all, in some way, a success. They were places you’d think seriously about living in – even a city girl like I. But what about towns that are struggling? I can see why no local council or chamber of commerce would allow access on the basis of being Loser Town. However, a wander around my home town of Maidenhead last week provided the missing link.

Maidenhead is a Berkshire town with a population of 78,000, located between Slough and Reading. It has suffered from the shopping and other facilities available in those two towns, from out of town supermarkets, and from the niche shopping and amenities offered in surrounding affluent villages such as Cookham, Taplow and Bray.

What’s left is dire. Looking around, it was clear that most people were there due to lack of choice - because they either couldn’t afford a car (young people, including mothers) or didn’t want to drive long distances (old people). There were lots of empty shops, along with a poor range of goods and very little middle market choice. Atrocious service in Boots, where I was told to go to John Lewis for a brand they didn’t stock. Now, that’s fair enough if there had been a branch around the corner, but the nearest is in Reading.

There are two initiatives that could help to drag the town out of its stagnation. Kings Triangle is a proposed mixed use development which continues to shift the town’s centre of gravity towards the station, in my view correctly in order to encourage use of public transport. But although including office and residential space, as well as a public square, it follows the conventional path of trying to encourage more consumption. It may work, because it will provide a mix of large and small retail units which may diversify the retail offer and persuade more time-poor people to return to local shopping, but it very much depends on attracting the major chain stores to the town. The plans ignore the dreadful local bus services, which need to be vastly improved – and subsidised – in order to get people out of their cars.

Maidenhead also has a Transition Town group. The web site includes an interesting series of events, and hopefully the people involved can help to promote a more sustainable approach to development. However, the problem with these kind of groups is that they tend to remain small and without real influence.

But the real issue is the bigger picture: are we seeing the beginning of changes that could be very beneficial for towns like Maidenhead? Higher fuel costs and decreasing consumption due to the economic situation could lead to the end of shopping as a leisure activity. If people returned to local retailers for essentials and followed the ‘buy less, buy well’ rule for the rest, then towns could benefit. And if more time is spent in a town, it becomes easier for it to develop a better community focus, reflecting the diversity of its citizens’ interests, and a stronger identity. All this helps with the area becoming a stronger economic hub as well.

Nicholas Crane gave us fascinating accounts of four towns that are further forward in this process, but others can follow.

Just askin'

2011-08-09T22:40:00.001+01:00

Much consternation across the world about the English riots – mistakenly described in the media as UK riots, incidentally. But I can’t improve on Nick’s brilliant post about that subject, so I am turning my attention to the new financial crisis that’s bubbling away under the surface.

My understanding of the current situation is that US debt has been downgraded by one credit ratings agency; interest rates in the US will remain low for the next two years, presumably to try to encourage growth (which didn’t work in 2008); there are continuing problems in several eurozone countries; and the UK Chancellor is to address Parliament tomorrow, presumably to emphasise that further cuts remain necessary. Even Sammy Wilson has got in on the act. On top of this, consumer spending remains weak due to job losses and general loss of confidence in the future.

So, to summarise: nations have debt problems because they bailed out the banks which got into trouble due to poor lending practices compounded by lack of regulation. Nations cut public services due to debt problems. Public spending falls, firms go out of business, tax income falls. Credit agencies label nations as bad credit risks. Banks that hold loans to said nations get nervous and start to restrict lending again. Liquidity decreases. Shares fall. Interest rates fall. There is talk of further bank bailouts.

But with what? Are nations expected to get further into debt to keep capitalism in business? Or, if they can’t or won’t, what is the alternative? In 2007-08, in what we may soon be referring to as ‘the last credit crunch’, it was possible for nations to justify putting huge amount of money into bank bailouts of some kind – because debt was within reasonable limits. Also, people were still spending because, even though there were job losses, public sector cuts had not taken hold. Businesses could rely on the spending power of public sector workers and also – perhaps crucially – public sector contracts to keep them going.

This time around it’s different. The economic base of Western capitalism is contracting and at the same time becoming more, not less, debt-based. So what will happen next?

Too much, too young

2011-07-26T09:01:00.005+01:00

Amy Winehouse died on Saturday 23rd July and will be buried today. The cause of her death remains uncertain but to many it wasn’t a surprise. She joins the uncanny number of musicians who died at 27, including Robert Johnson, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix and Kurt Cobain.
Artists such as Winehouse are under two severe pressures: first, that of being so well known that you have no personal privacy; and second, the unrelenting scrutiny of your work (or comment on the lack of it), whether recorded or live performances. A further, usually disregarded, element of their lives is that maintaining your initial success is hard work. It’s not surprising that some people can’t cope - and once you are well known, handing in your notice on a Friday afternoon and slinking off to the pub isn’t an option.
But the more interesting question is: what about those who have survived? What is the secret of the old timers like, say, Keith Richards, Patti Smith, Lou Reed, Iggy Pop?

Recently I read Patti Smith’s autobiography, Just Kids. It’s a fascinating tale of a young woman coming to New York City, living rough, hooking up with Robert Mappelthorpe, working in bookshops, living in the Chelsea Hotel and finally being able to make a living as a poet and rock musician.
But there’s something of steel in it too. She always thought of herself as an artist. She worked hard. In some way, it seemed to me, she held herself back – not from the excesses of the day, but from letting those excesses get to her. She had a very strong relationship with her family, but then so did Winehouse. This isn’t about what other people can give you but about your own capacity to withstand stress. Smith’s book (and film, Dream of Life) made clear that artistic expression through poetry and music was the driving force in her life. That would give you a pretty strong survival instinct.

Unlike many, I don’t think Amy Winehouse was an outstandingly great singer or songwriter. I suspect that she may be remembered more for inspiring other young women with good voices to take up careers as solo performers. But the real tragedy is that, with discipline, she could have become great later in life.

It’s that time of year again

2011-07-11T21:55:00.001+01:00

I moved to East Belfast just over two years ago, and was surprised at how few flags went up in my area in July. This year, to my even greater surprise, there are no flags or bunting at the Strandtown shops. We have an Australian visitor staying with us. A couple of weeks ago we drove home that way and I remarked to her that if the area stayed flag-free I would interpret it as a victory for gentrification. Either that or the frighteningly efficient Alliance election team got back out there overnight and took the whole lot down.

Nowadays, I wonder if overt displays of loyalism are becoming more exclusively the sign of disadvantaged areas. And of course this raises the question of how the state and ‘community representatives’ in these areas should respond. Currently, funding is available to turn the Eleventh Night into a community festival as long as you avoid overt paramilitary displays and take the tyres off the bonfire. But money is getting tighter and state rewards for (temporary) good behaviour may disappear in the next few years. I would have thought it wasn’t the time to mark out your territory as a no-go areas for anyone who doesn’t share your identity and heritage. Why on earth would anyone invest in Ballyclare after this week’s riots, or in inner East Belfast with its new ‘gateway’ murals?

If the gangsters who still dominate some of the poorer areas in Northern Ireland really do have the interests of their community at heart, they will realise there is no point in continuing to orchestrate violence and sectarian ill-will around the Twelfth. But if their aim is to intimidate the majority of people in these neighbourhoods for their own ends, then this behaviour will continue and the majority in these neighbourhoods will suffer as a result.

A better private rented sector

2011-07-05T12:15:00.008+01:00

Much consternation about last night’s shocking Dispatches programme Landlords from Hell, presented by Jon Snow and linked to Shelter England’s Evict Rogue Landlords campaign. The undercover reporters showed a landlord charging a fortune in rent for poor quality housing and ignoring the law when they want to evict tenants. This landlord (who was a registered charity) also bought property from elderly home owners and rented it back, promising a tenancy for life and then, in the example we saw, evicting them. To finish, another reporter rented a share of a shed in Southall for £40 a week.

I wasn’t a bit surprised by any of it. The private rented sector (PRS) has always had its unscrupulous side, sliding very easily into criminality as bad landlords exploit the ignorance and powerlessness of their tenants. Indeed, subsidised rented housing – first the late Victorian charitable trusts and then council housing – was a response to the nineteenth century PRS. Until the 1970s a council house was a prized asset, because the alternative was a poor quality and probably overcrowded private rental. Conditions in the PRS have continued to drive improvements in housing legislation, for example the 1977 Homeless Persons Act and its equivalents elsewhere in the UK. Representing Finsbury Park’s bedsit land on Hackney Council in the 1980s convinced me that the kind of landlords who rent to low income tenants usually seek to exploit them rather than to run a reputable business.

So what to do? Dispatches exposed the low end of the business – in both senses of the term – and that needs to be dealt with. But the real question is: how can the PRS work effectively? The UK housing system consists of three components: owner occupation, social housing, and the PRS. The first two are better for people who are settled, although the PRS is playing an increasing role here due to both the state of the housing market and the shortage of social housing. Private renting is best for the shorter term, for example working in a city you don’t plan to move to permanently. It allows the labour mobility that’s important to the economy and also the personal flexibility that is necessary at some stages in our lives.

Here’s what’s needed. First, the PRS need to be properly regulated. Social housing providers are subject to much closer inspection because their building costs are part-funded by the state. The cheap end of the PRS is funded almost entirely by Housing Benefit, which is also taxpayers’ money, but private landlords are not quizzed about their management performance because there’s an erroneous assumption that all tenants can pack up and leave if they don’t like it. There’s also a problem with under-funded Environmental Health departments not having the resources to prosecute landlords.

Secondly, more information and advocacy services are needed for both tenants and landlords. Housing advice is provided by local councils, Citizens’ Advice, Shelter and other organisations, but Dispatches showed that it’s not getting through to everyone who needs it. Obviously the focus last night was on tenants’ problems, but some landlords do suffer from badly behaved tenants and need help to take action within the law. In addition, vulnerable tenants need someone to help them through the system and that’s where advocacy is important – but it’s labour intensive and again needs to be funded in some way.

Finally, there’s a more fundamental point. Poor and vulnerable people should not be in the PRS. They often need social support, which they are more likely to get as part of a social housing tenancy. The social housing sector isn’t perfect – most importantly there’s not enough of it, but there are also still problems of disrepair and poor management. But social landlords are more closely regulated and tenant participation is encouraged. The other side of the picture is that running a responsible private landlord business is expensive. The only way to make money out of poor tenants is to put them in awful housing and never do any repairs. The PRS is best suited to better off, well informed and mobile tenants who want good quality accommodation and are prepared to pay for it, have the resources to put pressure on their landlords if something’s not right – and to walk away as a last resort.

Early 20th-century council housing got people out of the slums and changed their lives. The reason for subsidised housing hasn’t gone away, as we saw last night.

Do we need to lose the Bookshop at Queen’s?

2011-06-25T21:40:00.002+01:00

I gather that the Bookshop at Queen’s is to close. There will of course be much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the end of civilisation as we know it from the South Belfast chatterati who haven’t bought a book there in years. However, the manager has got it right in The Gown when he says:

I have to concede that this model, in terms of a bricks and mortar bookshop and concentrating on academic books, is no longer economically viable.

He goes on to say ‘younger people’ – by which I assume he mainly means students – use the internet to buy books, but more fundamentally don’t buy books at all because they are using the internet as an information source in its own right. Again I think he is largely correct, despite the efforts of many lecturers like myself who stress the unreliability of internet sources and try to get our student to actually read books and journal articles. There’s another reason students might not buy books, of course – fees and the cost of living in a society which no longer provides free third level education.

So is closure inevitable? I wonder whether options other than closure have been considered. I always understood that the bookshop was run by a Management Board which has a connection with Queen’s but that the bookshop is not owned by the university, as stated by The Gown. How can I put this tactfully. There may be a possibility that the Board (whose names I cannot find on the internet) does not contain many people with bookselling experience, or wider commercial knowledge, although of course I may be wrong.

The student market has gone, thus freeing up the bookshop to capitalise on its best known feature, the wide selection of books on Irish politics and history. Why not make this the bedrock of a different kind of bookshop, perhaps learning from No Alibis down the road?

The stock should be reduced to Irish history and politics (North and South), local history, Irish language (OK, Ulster Scots as well), tourist-related information, and a literature section based on local authors (in both local languages and in our local dialect), of whom we have a glorious selection. There may be scope for moving into specialist secondhand books to supplement the current range of new bargain books, and perhaps even a limited range of non-book items. There would then be space for an ‘events’ room or area, which should be used to continue the current tradition of book launches, plus other readings and talks organised independently or connected to the many festivals we have in Belfast - or to University departments and Institutes. There should be a greater focus on promoting online trade (see this example of the Brookline Booksmith). And of course eBooks should be available to purchase online and in the shop.

In these ways, the bookshop would provide a more specialist service to those with an interest in aspects of Irish history, politics and culture, with both a local and global market. Investment would be needed in development of online services and perhaps in recruiting some new staff with more expertise in this area as well as marketing and events management. Interestingly, the news item in The Bookseller says the shop is still profitable but expects not to be next year, so there may still be time to make changes.

Bookselling is going through hard times at the moment due to the economic climate and technological change. It’s certainly a lot tougher than when I worked in bookshops in the 1980s, or when Nick worked at the Bookshop at Queen’s for a short period ten years ago, after considerable bookselling experience in London. New business models need to be developed and it may be too late to do so in this particular case. Or it may be that what I’ve outlined has been costed and is unviable. But I wouldn’t like to see them give up without having explored every option.

Following your dreams in the modern world

2011-06-18T20:22:00.000+01:00

The blogging hiatus has been due to being busy at work and also having been in the USA on a Boston College Irish Institute programme, of which more in the weeks to come. I’ve also been working on Labour in Northern Ireland’s submission to the Refounding Labour review, again to be discussed here in the near future. In the wider world, the Greek economy is collapsing and, at home, this year the Twelfth looks like it’s going to be a humdinger.

So what better subject to blog about than Lady Gaga. I watched the Paul O’Grady special last night in the interests of catching up with this global entertainment phenomenon.

The music is derivative – deliberately so in some cases, I gather from an interesting Rolling Stone interview (not available in full on line) – and her voice is weak compared with, say, Adele. But of course it’s not about the music. The staging of the performances are lavish and, I think, superb, although of course again sometimes derivative. The Factory it ain’t, despite an intriguing reference to Warhol’s studio during the interview (and does this photo remind you of anyone?).

However, the interview left me unsure about just how positive a message Gaga is giving to her Little Monsters about how they might live. Apparently in interviews she often mentions having been bullied at school, and she is well known for her advocacy of LBGT rights. Full marks for the message of being true to yourself and not ashamed of having been born that way.

But less so for the message of the inevitability of fulfilment. With reference to her own experiences, Gaga movingly stated that people need to hold on to their essence and that eventually they would be able to be live a life where they could be themselves, recognised and valued for who they really are.

Now that’s a positive message if it’s interpreted by young people as meaning they should behave with integrity in whatever situation they find themselves – unemployment, that boring or frustrating first job, after the promotion you don’t get, or in other difficult personal circumstances such as being jilted. Not so much if the assumption is that everyone who wants to be a pop star, footballer or other form of ‘celebrity’ is going to make it simply because that’s what they want and that’s where they think they ought to be in life. When Gaga was talking about being yourself, I didn’t get the impression she was talking about getting a steady job in order to pay the mortgage and support your family – but for many people, that’s what integrity comes down to in the end.

The hard truth is that some people never get the opportunity to do what they would really like to in life, due to lack of opportunity or ability, no matter how hard they try. That doesn’t stop them being true to themselves in their personal lives, of course. But a bit more realism about the options available would be nice.

Whoever you vote for, the government gets in

2011-05-06T11:58:00.002+01:00

The big story so far from yesterday’s Northern Ireland elections is low turnout. Anecdotal evidence from the polling stations indicates around 50 per cent in some areas. So why might that be? I suggest from my own experience that it was because the campaign was overwhelmingly irrelevant, dull and dishonest.

It would have been easy to regard all three ballots as not worth a trip to the polling station. In the Assembly elections, we all knew our votes might change the balance within the enforced coalition, but the Executive structure remains and it’s very likely that the ‘big five’ parties will all be sitting round the table again next week, carving up the ministries between them as before. With the exception of the Green Party, none of the huge number of other parties were a serious challenge. And even if they had been, once they arrived in Stormont most would be consigned to the powerless ‘other’ designation. In Northern Ireland, it’s really true that whoever you vote for, the government gets in.

The local councils present a different dilemma. Again, councils using d’Hondt will be working together, but without a cabinet government structure that’s not such an issue. For councils; the problem is that many important public services such as housing, social services, education and libraries, are not within their control. Because the previous Executive wasn’t prepared to make decisions on the local government aspect of the Review of Public Administration, we are still stuck with far too many councils with far too little power.

And finally the voting reform ballot. We in Northern Ireland make up a small percentage of the overall UK vote and it certainly looks as if the status quo will prevail due to English votes.

Of course elections aren’t just about structures, even here where we are so over-governed. They should really be about policy debate, with real choices to make between the parties. And this is where the dullness and dishonesty comes in. The campaign was dull partly because we have very few charismatic politicians, and the parties seemed to delight in putting up the least appealing for TV appearances and public meetings.

But it was the policy element that was the particular disgrace. Over the past few years, much of the world has faced a financial crisis which has now worked its way through to cuts in public sector budgets. This you would not have guessed from reading election leaflets or watching the TV debates.

No party with any realistic chance of winning an Assembly seat stood on a ‘no cuts’ platform with a position of confronting the Westminster government by, for example, deliberately running a deficit at either regional or local levels. The Assembly’s 2011-15 budget was agreed in March, with the UUP voting against and the SDLP abstaining although neither party then resigned from the Executive. Take a look at all the minus figures. But none of the ‘big five’ made any realistic proposals for achieving a balanced budget by either making cuts or increasing income, for example through campaigning for taxation powers at Stormont. They all promised us goodies like it was still 2007. The approach can be summed up in a DUP East Belfast leaflet entitled ‘Alliance will cost you more’.

Alliance did come out in support of water charges, for which they were pilloried by others. But the debate was woeful. Funding for water services has been removed from the Barnett Formula and so we have to think of some local way of raising the cash, although a separate charge may not be the best option. Or there will be cuts elsewhere, some out of a much reduced capital budget. Why did no-one say this?

Another exasperating promise was not to increase university tuition fees above the rate of inflation. Is this really feasible? Again the amount of funding from Westminster for higher education will be reduced, so how are universities expected to make up the funding gap? I don’t want to see higher fees, but no party explained where the money was going to come from – although in this case I suspect from an area that isn’t of such importance to the middle class.

Indeed, it could be that policy doesn’t matter at all, if we are still locked into voting along sectarian lines, encouraged by the current structures. Even those of us who deliberately choose the ‘other’ parties are still having our choices shaped by the territorial divide. For example, I included Alliance in my votes despite being deeply unhappy with the removal of the PSNI 50/50 rule.

So what needs to be done in the next four years? Low turnout may indicate that it’s time for a change to the structure at Stormont and also for getting on with the restructuring of local councils. The next Executive will cause great public disillusion by breaking a lot of promises and this may engender a degree of political maturity in 2015, from both the candidates and the electorate. Alternatively, we could just go on as we are and accept apathy as the price of peace.

Would like to Tweet

2011-04-25T21:24:00.001+01:00

After having been a relative and reluctant latecomer to Twitter, I still think it’s incredibly difficult to use. I’m astonished at how it’s catching on as part of marketing and communication strategies in the public, private and voluntary sector. Is there any organisation that doesn’t have ‘follow us on Facebook and Twitter’ added to their web page nowadays?

Well, until last week there was one. I’m involved with a UK learned society called the Housing Studies Association, and at our last committee meeting we decided it was time to tweet. We ran a successful experiment during our recent conference, with several of us tweeting, getting retweeted, getting favourable comments and acquiring new followers in the process, focused on our hashtag #hsa11. Subsequently we have set up our own Twitter account and team (aided by the very useful recent piece in Inside Housing), and I am tweeting housing news in Northern Ireland. We are also on Facebook, of course.

So now there are times when I have to enjoy Twitter responsibly, because I am representing an organisation. This has brought into focus all the frustrations I experience with it.

First, it can be quite hard to find Twitter accounts on Twitter. I’ve found the easiest way is to google the name followed by ‘on twitter’. WTF.

Second, the hashtag. I never thought I would be standing up in front of a group of housing academics and saying ‘if you are tweeting, the conference hashtag is.....’ But I often forget to add one - and how do you find a hashtag if you don’t know what it is? You can guess, which seems to work quite well, or pick it up from other people’s tweets, but surely there’s a better way of grouping interests so that people can follow them. The Facebook page system works well for me, for example. You can’t subscribe to a hashtag, you have to search for it or click on a link in someone’s tweet.

Third, the @person thing. Again I forget, with the exception of when I’m replying to someone. And although direct messages are notified via e-mail, replies under @Mentions aren’t, so it can be easy to miss them if you are busy.

Fourth, the business of shortening e-mail links. As with using google to find people, if you want to make the most of your 140 characters you have to go into a separate application to do this, and paste it into your tweet. Something I’ve never been able to work out how to do on my phone. But again it’s fiddly.

Which brings me – fifth – to the 140 characters limit. Why oh why? Although there are times when the discipline is good, there are far more when it constrains expression overmuch, especially when a shortened URL, a hashtag or two, and the odd @person is included. And a photo, although I haven’t started using that application yet.

Finally, the easiest thing to do on Twitter is to retweet, which is presumably why there’s such a lot of it about. But I haven’t been able to work out how to add a comment to a retweet, so I assume I can’t. Facebook is far superior here, with the thumbs ups, comments and captions for shared items. It’s actually quite difficult to have a conversation on Twitter, as it doesn’t come up anywhere as a thread – could this be why it is so beloved of marketing people?

It’s hard to understand why Twitter is becoming so popular when it has so many flaws. It has huge potential though. It’s changing the way we communicate and think in a way that I believe is ultimately going to be very positive.

However - Twitter is only v.1 of ... well, whatever Twitter is meant to be.

Neighbourhood policing

2011-04-16T23:13:00.000+01:00

There have been some minor instances of anti-social behaviour in our neighbourhood recently – nothing serious, just annoying stuff like graffiti, kids knocking on our windows, more litter in our drive, and in one case eggs thrown at the house. We were concerned that the latter might have been personal, because we are English, but we’ve been told it’s happened to other houses in the area as well.

The problem seems to be with two groups in society – young kids, and older teenagers/ young adults. The young kids are local and, in general, well brought up. I suspect they just don’t think there’s a problem with litter and window-knocking, or making a noise in the street or playing football mainly in the street, but straying into front gardens occasionally. And, indeed, if all the neighbours are happy with that, then it isn’t a problem.

The older group are more difficult to assess. They certainly appear more threatening. They seem to roam over a wider area, they drink, and I suspect they are completely aware that their behaviour is intimidating. A few weeks ago we had a call from a neighbour who wasn’t at home, but who had been phoned by his teenage children who were in the house on the own. An older group were playing football in their drive and the children were scared. He asked us to go and take a look but by the time we arrived they were gone.

The police have responded well, however compared to what they have to deal with elsewhere these are not major incidents. My concern is that nowadays society leaves too much of the responsibility for anti-social behaviour with the police and not enough with the citizen. Of course it could be argued that in Northern Ireland this is less the case than many other places, due to the residual vigilante practices of paramilitary organisations, but I’m talking about areas – such as my own – where this doesn’t happen. The police have told us not to confront anyone, and not even to take photos (they are concerned about child protection issues), but to call them whenever we see anything untoward, and not to worry about it seeming unimportant.

You couldn’t ask for more from your neighbourhood police, but I’m not afraid of these kids and I want to confront them. I want to say to them that certain types of behaviour are not acceptable in my neighbourhood and that it has to stop – and keep on saying it, if necessary. I think that by giving up the right to do this to the police, we as citizens are hiding too much behind the state and, in fact, that it means these young people have achieved the dominance of public space which they seek. Needless to say, both the younger and older groups are usually boys.

The received liberal wisdom is that children and young adults need to be provided with things to do, to stop this kind of behaviour. Well, I was brought up in a town with very few activities for young people and I didn’t end up hanging around on street corners. Much more to the point is whether parents know where their children are. If your children want to meet up with friends, let them do so in someone’s house and garden. If your children say they are going to visit a friend, phone to check they are actually there. Don’t let your few hours of peace and quiet be at the expense of somebody else’s. If your children are older, you can’t police them, of course. But let them know certain kinds of behaviour are not only despicable (which they probably won’t care about), but illegal, and it’ll be hard to get that first job or J1 visa with a criminal record.

I’m for zero tolerance when it comes to anti-social behaviour and I see no contradiction between that and being a socialist. I believe that if you allow incivility to take hold and boundaries to be crossed, then the problem escalates. Remove graffiti at once, clean up litter, and speak to people who may not understand that their behaviour is causing a nuisance. Socialism is about the collective, and anti-social behaviour is about the power of the (usually male) individual to cause distress to others. Citizens need to be able to make that clear.

On strike – or perhaps not?

2011-03-25T22:43:00.002Z

I’ve been on strike for a couple of days this week, Monday and Thursday – or at least I think I have.

It’s my first time actually on strike as a lecturer, although when working at the University of Glasgow I participated in ‘action short of a strike’ by withholding marks. This was extremely unpopular with students, because the action took place towards the end of the academic year and we had people going for job interviews and not knowing their degree result. However, it was possible to hold the line by explaining that the marks would be released once the dispute was resolved.

So I thought actual strike action would be relatively straightforward. I had a lecture to give on Monday but nothing on Thursday. I informed the students and said I would be rescheduling the class at a later date. There were no complaints. I turned up on both Monday and Thursday mornings at my usual time and spent a couple of hours picketing my workplace, which involved amicable discussions with colleagues and some students. I was the only person in my School to do any picketing whatsoever, but was supported by someone from another Department – my building has two entrances so we took one each.

I had time on both days to reflect on the new categories into which I could place my colleagues:

1. Not a union member. My School includes Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, so is not a hotbed of radicalism. Most people I spoke to were not union members and some were not even in the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) – much of the reason for the strike was about changes to USS conditions. Obviously I encouraged them to join.

2. Union member but not on strike. I had more sympathy for this than you might imagine. Of course it’s possible to reschedule an ordinary lecture, but I knew of two cases in my department where cancellations would have been more complex due to the involvement of outside speakers or visitors. I’m not sure what I would have done if, for example, the strike had taken place on the day of one of my field trips. OK, I do know, I would have cancelled, but it’s a more difficult issue than people might think.

3. Union member on strike but invisible. UCU guidance said: ‘tell your students that you will not be teaching them or providing them with any form of service on the 21st and 24th March’. I interpreted that as meaning it was perfectly OK to spend some of the day working on research-related items. One of my colleagues spoke at a conference and interpreted that as being within the remit of strike action. Some may have just stayed at home and not done any work, but this would have been rare. Contrary to popular belief, academics do work quite hard, and about 50 per cent of what we do doesn’t involve teaching or student-related administration.

4. Union member on strike and on the picket line, for a few hours at least. That was, er, me.

And that was how my bubble of self-righteousness was punctured, while chatting to a member of the UCU committee on the Thursday. I mentioned that I was rescheduling my Monday lecture and was told that shouldn’t be happening, rather I should leave out the lecture altogether. That wasn’t at all clear from our local UCU written guidance.

I’d had some time over the two days to think about what going on strike means for professionals. In my case, I have an obligation to my students. I’m prepared to miss work on particular days to make a point, but I’m not prepared to omit a key part of the module on a permanent basis.

When I took part in ‘action short of a strike’, we did eventually give the students their marks. For me, not rescheduling my lecture would be like permanently withholding the marks.

So now I’m confused. Was I on strike or wasn’t I?

Popping in for tea

2011-03-08T10:47:00.003Z

Ed Miliband visited Northern Ireland yesterday, including Bombardier and Stormont. At Bombardier, I hope he met trade unionists who are Labour members and in some cases would have voted for him in last year’s leadership campaign. At Stormont, I hope he noticed the absence of Labour MLAs and wondered why.

His visit was kept very quiet. The press didn’t know, and neither did we Labour members in Northern Ireland.

Martina Purdy, on Stormont Today, commented that this fiasco ‘doesn’t say much for the state of relations within that party’.

She’s right, but not in the way the person who fed her that line might have intended.

There is an issue here about Ed Miliband’s staff and their knowledge of Northern Ireland. The judgements made yesterday reflect far worse on the Leader of the Opposition than on his local party members (or the local press).

First, why visit Northern Ireland and keep it quiet? Do Miliband's advisers still think there’s a security risk? Who thought it wouldn’t be a good idea to notify the press? Surely if you are the leader of a political party, and you visit an area, you want some publicity? Would meeting the general public have been too much trouble – for example a short walkabout in Belfast? How exactly has Miliband’s political capital been raised by his welcome by Robinson and McGuinness at Stormont (during which Miliband looked very uncomfortable)?

Second, let’s look at the business of failing to notify the Labour Party here. The local press knew to get on the phone to Boyd Black. Miliband’s advisers didn’t. Either they didn’t know whom to contact, or they didn’t think it mattered. Either was poor judgement on their behalf. I fail to see how that error can be turned around to appear to be a fault or weakness on the part of the local party.

Ed Miliband and his advisors need to do their homework on Northern Ireland before their next visit. As it was, he looked as if he was parachuted in for the day and couldn’t care less. Which of course couldn’t be true – could it?

Why Labour made the right decision yesterday

2011-03-07T22:27:00.001Z

I enjoyed watching the debate yesterday on whether Labour should go into coalition with Fine Gael. Each side put forward clear arguments, principled and held sincerely. And, of course, something of real consequence was at stake.

Eamon Gilmore and Brendan Howlin proposed and seconded the motion that Labour should go into government with Fine Gael. Gilmore made the general points that it had been Labour’s best election results ever and he believed people voted for Labour to be in government – the implication being that Labour had been given a mandate for coalition as a smaller party, which certainly towards the end of the campaign looked most likely, and so was probably true. Howlin went into more detail about what was in the (then) draft Programme for Government, and I was surprised at the extent of Labour influence: a Strategic Investment Bank and Jobs Fund, reverse the cut in the minimum wage, no further cuts in social welfare, a budget for jobs in the first 100 days, no more transfers to NAMA, action to reduce substantially evictions for mortgage arrears, no compulsory redundancies in frontline public services, and some unclear but promising-sounding measures on universal access to health care – along with a compromise on the 3% deficit date, now 2015.

Arguments for and against were relatively simple. For - Labour has done well out of the draft PfG and therefore is in a good position to protect people; the alternative is a less stable alliance of Fine Gael and Independents. Labour has a responsibility to the people. Or, as Gilmore brilliantly retorted when summing up, people in mortgage arrears now can’t wait another four years for a Labour government.

Against – Labour should lead opposition to cuts both inside and outside the Oireachtas, and build support towards a Labour-led government in the future. A coalition with Fine Gael could put Labour in the same position as the LibDems in the UK and the Greens after the past four years. The PfG is still based on failing neoliberal policies and should not be supported.

The proposal to join the government was won overwhelmingly on a show of hands.

Well, I think they have done the right thing. I am particularly persuaded by the responsibility argument; remaining in opposition may feel very good but it won’t help to preserve jobs, health or education. But I see that in 2007 I didn’t think the Greens should go into government with Fianna Fáil. So what makes this different?

Well, two reasons. First, Fine Gael really needs Labour - for a stable government that will be respected nationally, when difficult decisions still have to be implemented, and internationally, which is just as important for jobs and the economy generally. If Labour walk away, there will have to be another election. Second, the contents of the draft PfG indicate that Labour are tough negotiators, showing greater political acumen than did the Greens. I hope that skill, backed up with debate arising from the tensions between left and right which are found in any Labour party, keep feet firmly on the ground and remind TDs that government at any cost is not what their party is about.

Labour is taking a calculated risk, and part of that risk might be knowing when to walk away. But not to have taken that risk at the present time would have been criminally irresponsible.

You could have been receiving me

2011-02-24T21:37:00.002Z

Yesterday I posted a lament about lack of access to RTÉ channels. It included the following:

Cable had to be Virgin, formerly NTL. To our surprise, they didn’t include RTÉ channels in any of their packages.

It now turns out that we were misinformed and you can get RTÉ1, RTÉ2 and TG4 on Virgin.

How did this happen?

In February, we received a leaflet through the door, quite by chance given the situation with the chimney and Sky as described yesterday, informing us that we were already connected to Virgin Media. It suggested we might like to switch, proposed a special offer until 31st March, and gave a number to call or web site to visit. The number was 0800 052 1216.

That was the number Nick called, and he was told there was no RTÉ service available.

I called the same number this evening, and was put through to a very helpful woman who confirmed that when my postcode was typed into her system, it did not say RTÉ was available.

The web site is no better. It provides a list of channels available which doesn’t include RTÉ, no doubt because the service is only available in Northern Ireland. I checked that myself at the time and again this evening.

The leaflet suggested a third option for getting more information: ‘pop into a Virgin Media store’. Now whoever on earth does that nowadays unless you know what you are going to buy once you get there, after having checked it out on the internet? Of course we didn’t pursue that option - until this evening. So where was the local store? No details in our brand new phone book, delivered a few days ago. But the Virgin Media store locator on the otherwise useless web site told me that there was a Virgin Media store in Castle Court. The phone was answered almost instantly and the sales assistant confirmed that yes, RTÉ was included and we should come into the store to arrange installation and discuss a number of current special offers. Through gritted teeth, I explained why we were not in a position to do that.

I am steaming mad about this. So how can I complain? With great difficulty:

• The call centre woman couldn’t find a phone number for me to do so.
• The web site includes a complaints form that only accepts complaints from existing account holders. I want to complain that I wasn’t able to get that far. So I can write a letter – come on guys, this is the 21st century!
• Ofcom requires me to take the matter up first with the supplier – which in this case is not my supplier.
• Most ludicrously, the local store doesn’t accept complaints to Virgin as a company because ‘we only sell and install their products’. I’m sure we are not the only customers they have lost due to misinformation and they are not prepared to do anything about it.

So what are we going to do? I intend to write to Virgin but I don’t expect to get a response. The practical issue is that we have to decide whether to write off £134 and go for a Virgin service anyway, now that we know we can get it.

Problem is – after all this, do we really want to become their customer?

Are you receiving me?

2011-02-23T21:58:00.003Z

Much consternation in out house recently over changes to our TV reception. Soon after Christmas we had to have our chimney removed for structural reasons. Great relief all round as it stopped a roof leak. And then the man came round to re-connect Sky – the dish had been attached to the chimney – and he couldn’t get a signal from anywhere else on the house. Too many trees in the area, apparently. We could ask for them to be cut down, he suggested. Hmmm, we thought. Sky reception but no trees? Not a good exchange.

So we investigated the alternatives. Cable had to be Virgin, formerly NTL. To our surprise, they didn’t include RTÉ channels in any of their packages. How about Freeview? No, they were UK channels only. Could we still get an analogue signal for the Southern channels? Yes, but we’d have to pay £100 or so for a separate aerial, which would only be available until the end of 2012, on top of the charge of more than £100 to get the Freeview stuff done. Apparently the Republic’s Saorview digital service is due to start this summer, but it was impossible to get any precise information. In particular, it’s wasn’t clear whether we’d need a second set top box and/ or second digital aerial.

At one stage, Nick was told we were entitled to RTÉ under the Good Friday Agreement. Surely that can’t be right? I thought. Surely the GFA, along with peace, love and integrated education, doesn’t give me the right to watch Fair City and The Panel?

I looked it up, and of course that wasn’t quite correct. Section 6 is called ‘Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity’. It contains a section on ‘Economic, Social and Cultural Issues’, which amongst other items addresses access to the Irish language, including the commitment of the British and Irish governments to ‘explore urgently with the relevant British authorities, and in co-operation with the Irish broadcasting authorities, the scope for achieving more widespread availability of Teilifis na Gaeilige in Northern Ireland’. That’s TG4 now. So Ros na Rún (subtitled) is nailed at any rate - not that it did us any good.

A further alternative was to get rid of the set altogether. We could watch online, listen to the radio, go to the cinema and read the newspapers. Being a ‘we don’t watch much TV’ kind of couple, it was nice for a few weeks to find out this was actually true, and feel smug. But then withdrawal symptoms set in. So we’ve just been reconnected to the UK channels via a Freeview box and intend to get the Southern digital service as soon as we can, and watch online until then.

Northern Ireland certainly isn’t as British as Finchley, but right now I have the same TV choices as my outer London counterparts and I don’t like it one bit. It’s good to have Newsnight back, though.

On the doors

2011-02-05T22:38:00.002Z

To Co. Louth today to canvass for Labour candidate Ged Nash, with a few others from the old Irish Labour crowd. Much note-taking had gone on the night before, making sure that I knew the VAT rate and so on.

There were about ten of us in all and so we were able to cover a lot of ground. It was a stinking day for it and we all ended up soaking wet but it was worth it to get out there early in the campaign. We saw no canvassers from other parties, perhaps due to the weather.

There was the usual high level of people out or not answering. Of those who did open the door, most were only just starting to think about their voting choices and wanted to know a great deal more before making up their minds – but rather than say they were voting Labour to make you go away, they seemed genuinely to be unsure what they were going to do. Some were very vocal about their disillusion with all politicians (as also found by the Irish Times today) and some of these said that at this stage they were thinking of not voting at all. The fact that they have bothered to open the door means it’s possible to have a discussion about this. Labour’s candidate being local, well-known and trusted was important – which is not good news for Sinn Féin.

But for the first time in nearly thirty years of canvassing, I also saw quite a few ‘no politicians’ and ‘no election material’ signs, which have to be respected. In those cases, people had already given up. They didn’t want to engage with the democratic process at all, because they just can’t be bothered. Normally this infuriates me, but I can understand it on this occasion.

The question is what’s going to happen to all this confusion and disappointment. Will voters turn to the United Left Alliance and to Sinn Féin, in the misguided hope that things can carry on as they were after all and the EU/ IMF deal can be unilaterally reneged on rather than renegotiated? Will they stay at home, concentrate on minimising the damage for themselves and their families, and to hell with everyone else? Or can Labour win these votes on a pragmatic but fairer solution to the crisis that isn't going to go away?

Tomorrow’s poll in the Sunday Business Post apparently show Labour up 3% to 22%, with Fine Gael at 35% (down 2), Fianna Fáil 17% (down 1), Sinn Féin 13% (up 1), the Greens 2% (down 1) and others remaining at 11%. Promising for Labour, but it excludes the don’t knows.

What would a thin person do?

2011-01-23T20:12:00.007Z

I don’t obsess about my weight and generally feel that I’m pretty healthy, although the BMI index tells me I’m overweight. However, I put on the usual half stone at Christmas, followed by a few extra pounds after an early January dinner party and general finishing up the holiday goodies. This brought me up to my heaviest since the late 1990s. Last time I hit that weight, I managed to lose a stone and a half through eating less, but it was agonising. Ever since then I’ve gone for weight maintenance at roughly a stone under that maximum, but it’s been creeping up again recently and something must be done.

This time I’m not going to starve myself – I’m trying a different approach. I started to observe the way thin people eat. And there were interesting differences. Whether it’s a matter of training or inclination, I realised that thin people organise their eating to include less fat, sugar and carbs. They probably eat less overall too, but I think that may be less important than what they eat.

I decided to adopt several of these habits, and as a consequence I have lost five pounds in a week. I can’t say I stick to them all the time, but something is clearly working and it has the added advantage that I’m not needing to consider exercise, which in my opinion is the work of the devil. They are:

• When in the coffee shop, always drink americano. This has been an easy change to make from my usual cappuccino or latte, and has had the added benefit that I can actually taste the coffee
• Also in the coffee shop – a hazardous area – never never have a muffin or cake. This is more difficult, being addicted to Starbucks blueberry muffins. The way to deal with this is to go to the coffee shop with a thin person and feel too ashamed to eat in front of them
• Eat very few or no carbs: potatoes, pasta, noodles, cous cous, rice, bread. I’ve found it remarkably easy to cut down, although I haven’t cut them out altogether
• When eating out, never have a pudding
• Avoid cream; reduce consumption of cheese and chocolate. Difficult, but at least I have a good selection of vegan recipes to rely on at home.

Of course there are always those irritating thin people who break all the rules, eat as much as they like and never put on a single pound. How do I know this? – I’ve been living with one for nearly thirty years!

Apologies to all who thought I might write about the political situation in the Irish Republic today. Unlike some in NI politics I haven’t been trained to hit a moving target, and so intend to comment once it has all settled down a bit after next Tuesday.

Work ’til you drop

2011-01-13T22:05:00.004Z

The UK Default Retirement Age of 65 is to be phased out this year. After the end of September, no employer will be able to enforce retirement on grounds of age alone.

I have mixed feelings about this. There are both advantages and disadvantages for individuals. In some cases people will be delighted to be able to carry on working. They enjoy their jobs, perhaps because they are very skilled and knowledgeable and therefore valued by their employer and colleagues, or perhaps for the social contact, or the money – or all these reasons. Others might be happy to go, but would like to work shorter hours in less demanding employment. Working can provide autonomy and self-respect, which is why the transition to retirement can be difficult.

However, not everyone is in this position. People with physically or mentally demanding jobs may be past their best by the mid-sixties, and in some cases such as firefighters or police they will have been forced to retire earlier in any case (and a compulsory retirement age may still be operated in occupations if it can be justified). Others may have been looking forward to having more time for life outside work: spending more time on voluntary work or a hobby, and having more space in their lives for friends and family. They may feel obliged to work for longer if the opportunity is there, for example for financial reasons, but it would not have been their choice.

Employers obviously gain if they can hang onto good staff. But they have expressed concern about how, to be blunt, they might get rid of people who are no longer up to the job. The government’s response has been surprisingly robust, with the Employment Relations Minister telling them to use the capability procedure and that ‘the evidence that performance and effectiveness decline after 65 is just not there’. That may be so in the aggregate, but what about individual cases? As an ex-local government worker, I know how lengthy and complicated capability proceedings can be, and my experience was that incompetent people (of any age) were worked around rather than confronted.

The government agenda is clear. No doubt politicians hope that encouraging us to work for longer will soften the blow of the rising state pension age. In future, it may become politically feasible to reduce the flat rate pension and increase reliance on a means tested element. It’s been interesting to hear the Minister’s claims today that tax payments by older workers increase tax revenue, which implies that the numbers employed will increase as a result of this measure. Although in good times that may be so, I doubt that at present the public or private sector are taking on or keeping extra workers because some of them are over 65. It’s far more likely that younger people will be kept out of jobs in the short term, or in the longer term if the economy doesn’t pick up.

But most importantly, this measure increases the size of the labour pool, thus making it possible to drive down wages and conditions. Rising unemployment and increased economic activity means more competition for every job. That can only be to capitalism’s advantage.

What a way to run a water service

2011-01-01T11:39:00.004Z

The statement ‘nothing of note has happened over the Christmas period’ in my last post now looks rather foolish. When I wrote it, thousands of people had already been without water for several days, and since then the crisis has (I hope) peaked but not yet been entirely resolved. Many people have been working very hard to improve the situation, including Belfast City Council, the Red Cross, lots of politicians from all parties, Stephen Nolan and others in the media, and of course the employees of Northern Ireland Water.

It’s been announced that there will be a full inquiry into the ‘operational failure’, and ominously, the Secretary of State is making noises about changes to the structure and financing of water services in NI, making it clear that privatisation should be on the agenda. But the real difference between NI and elsewhere in the UK is that, in NI, large-scale investment is more recent. Scotland’s water isn’t privatised and they have coped better.

As well as an inquiry into the event itself, a strategic review is needed which should cover the following five points, which seem to me as a voter, taxpayer and water consumer to form a suitable framework for delivering an efficient water service:

1. A safe supply: this hasn’t currently been an issue here, but ask Galway residents about the possibilities. Safety must always be the first priority.

2. Conservation measures: Reservoirs have been low or empty recently due to burst pipes, but could be so in future due to heavier usage. The water agency needs to put out the message that water conservation does not have to affect health. The people who know about this are the Australians.

3. Method(s) of investment in infrastructure: The issues here are how to increase investment levels, how to implement a programme of improvements more quickly, and how investment will be repaid. It also seems odd that there are plans to sell off reservoirs.

4. Methods(s) of payment for water: This is currently the most controversial and politically unpopular aspect of water policy, although in future conservation measure may take over. A review should look at all options for revenue generation, including water rates; other rates and tax options; water meters; and penalties for businesses and landlords who cause significant loss of water through poor maintenance. The basic principles of water charging should be that the less well off are not penalised disproportionately, and the most difficult aspect of this is how to create a fair charging system that takes into account different household sizes. A means-tested water charge for minimum use per person plus a top-up meter system might work. Whatever about the detail, water rates should not be ruled out for populist reasons. The best argument against water rates is that it creates a separate revenue stream for the service, which then makes privatisation easier. I’m not aware that any politician in NI wants a privatised water supply, in which case the favoured option may be an increase in the regional rate.

5. Day to day management of the supply: need I say more? Review governance and leadership capacity as well as structure and communications.

It’s been interesting to observe the buck-passing once calls for resignations started. The Minister is blaming NI Water senior management and says he has no cause to resign. Senior managers are blaming the weather and under-investment. There have been a few comments elsewhere about recent changes in Board membership, but no suggestion that non-executive Board members should resign or be replaced (again). This incident should provoke a debate about accountability in Government Owned Companies.

Top ten books from 2010

2010-12-28T20:02:00.003Z

This year the New Year resolutions are boring, we are not in Sydney, and nothing of note has happened over the Christmas break. A perfect time to look back over the year’s reading and pick my top ten, presented below in alphabetical order of author. Not all were published for the first time in 2010 as I’m always trying to catch up.

Things We Didn’t See Coming by Steven Amsterdam (Harvill Secker)

Dystopian series of connected short stories, although Amazon describes it as a novel. Makes you wonder how you would behave in extreme circumstances, especially if you were a public official.

The World That Was Ours by Hilda Bernstein (Persephone Books)

First published in 1967, inspiring story of resisting apartheid despite the lengths to which the South African state was prepared to go to maintain their power. Bernstein, as a white woman, refused to accept her privileged place but there are some wry accounts of how she uses her position to protest or to help others.

Hearts and Minds by Amanda Craig (Abacus)

Characters from all over the world living in London and linked by a human rights lawyer living ‘on the scruffy edge of Islington and Camden Town’. Could so easily have been a parody but works wonderfully.

Eat Pray Love by Elizabeth Gilbert (Bloomsbury)

The critics have been most unkind about this book but I loved it. A woman deciding what she really wants to do with her life - it was the teensiest bit too self-centred in places though. A bit like talking to your friends.

The Fall of the House of Paisley by David Gordon (Gill & Macmillan)

Why Northern Ireland politics needs a wider gene pool. Well written and researched, and passionate about the need to move beyond politics based on sectarian division.

The Story of Stuff by Annie Leonard (Constable & Robinson)

Why it really is important to reduce, reuse and recycle – in that order. Takes you through production and consumption processes in guilt-inducing detail. It might be the book that actually changes your behaviour. There’s also a video.

The Propaganda of Peace: the Role of Media and Culture in the Northern Ireland Peace Process by Greg McLaughlin and Stephen Baker (Intellect)

Fascinating analysis of the ‘peace process’ media message as hegemonic project, backed up by civil society including the liberal intelligentsia, er, I think that’s me....

Brooklyn by Colm Tóibín (Penguin Books)

Emigration from Ireland to New York in the 1950s. How small town life can follow you to the big city – and back home again.

The Slap by Christos Tsiolkas (Tuskar Rock)

A bunch of unpleasant people deal with the aftermath of an incident at a party in Melbourne. Moral ambiguity and explicit sex. Lots of UK Amazon readers hated it. Made me miss Australia.

High Wages by Dorothy Whipple (Persephone Books)

First published in 1930. A great read about a young businesswoman, full of fascinating detail about shopkeeping at that time. Whipple was scorned by Virago in the 1980s but several of her novels have now been reissued by Persephone Books.

Snow

2010-12-18T11:25:00.014Z

My generation of children loved the snow. We always seemed to be out in it – tobogganing, throwing snowballs and making snowmen.

But when we grow up, snow is supposed to become a menace. We have to drive carefully – true, but responsible drivers know how to do this, and when not to travel to all; it’s only the minority who get stuck. We might slip on the footpath – but, at least until we are very old, our reaction times and (at worst) ability to heal will protect us. It’s true that some aspects of everyday life are disrupted, such as flights, but it does no harm to be reminded of how contingent these are on the power of nature.

I still do love the snow. The extreme whiteness of it, that makes everything I thought was white turn to cream. The way it settles on everything, reminding me of Rachel Whiteread’s sculptures. The quiet that accompanies a heavy snowfall. The extraordinary light.

Snow isn’t the worst type of weather. Frost and ice in sub-zero conditions are more dangerous and not as picturesque. Rain that goes on and on for days is more depressing. Excessive heat is difficult to deal with too, as I remember from my trips to Australia.

So throw on a jumper and get out there. Enjoy the scenery and the dry, refreshing cold.

And, when home again, it’s the perfect excuse for cakes.

Growth or no growth?

2010-11-29T21:40:00.007Z

To QUB's Politics Department on Saturday for the well-attended inaugural seminar of the Centre for Progressive Economics: The Global Economic Crisis: analyses and responses.

The CPE is a new forum for progressive discussion on economics and social policy. As the web site says:

At this time of global economic crisis and the literal bankruptcy and socially negative impacts of ‘business as usual’ stimulus packages there is a pressing need for fresh thinking about our economic future. This is an alternative and the Centre for Progressive Economics will seek to provoke debate as to that future in the Northern Ireland regional economy and beyond.The seminar included three excellent speakers: Dr Andrew Baker from QUB, Andrew Fisher from the Left Economics Advisory Panel (LEAP) in England, and John Woods from the Green New Deal in Northern Ireland. Presentations will be available on the CPE web site.

Not being an economist, I learned a huge amount, which will contribute to the new lecture on the economic crisis which I’m preparing for my second semester property development class. I’m still coming to terms with the alternative approach, which was brilliantly covered by Dr Baker (although somewhat challenging for a Saturday morning after only one cup of coffee). He debunked the various statements that are becoming received wisdom (as is also done in this ICTU pamphlet and by LEAP). For example, contrary to popular belief, the UK is not on the verge of bankruptcy and debt has been much higher at times in the past, for example after World War II.

But for me, the most spurious claim is that it’s all Labour’s fault - and Labour is not contesting it nearly as strongly as they should. Yes, there was failure to regulate financial institutions, which contributed to the crisis, but its roots lay in excess ‘financialisation’, which is increasing the ratio of cash loaned against assets owned and therefore increasing the risk of a default on payments (according to this new book by David Harvey). Thanks to Dr Baker, I have now discovered the phrase ‘countercyclical fiscal policy’, along with the need to dig out my old textbooks on Keynes.

Andrew Fisher told us about the work of LEAP in England, which provided some ideas about how CPE might develop. LEAP have gone for the bigger picture and propose a number of ways to increase revenue without making cuts in public services, as well as a programme of ‘green’ investment and building more social housing as ways to provide public benefit and create jobs. However, I preferred the smaller scale, more pragmatic approach of John Woods and the Green New Deal for Northern Ireland. The presentation gave most detail about the planned Housing Fund to retrofit homes to high standards of energy efficiency. The funding model includes both government grant and private sector loans, the latter to be repaid by households as their bills reduce.

So it was a very worthwhile morning. I left feeling more convinced of the arguments against cuts, and for spending our way out of recession. But the aspect of this vision which I don’t think is well enough developed is the question of what to do next.

That question is about economic growth. The mainstream debate takes for granted that we need it, without questioning the associated excessive and unsustainable patterns of consumption. Continuing to buy more imported stuff which is produced in awful conditions won’t contribute to the quality of life of the people who made it, or ourselves. But on the other hand, no growth means lost jobs, a reduced standard of living, and less opportunity for redistributive policies.

Or does it? Does the concept of the steady state economy mean that a new approach to production be envisaged, including for example the green economy, and socially beneficial services which can’t be delivered from India or China, and the knowledge economy? Who is left out of this mix, and who will pay for it given that so many proposals seem to require public subsidy?

There may well be convincing answers to these questions, which I have yet to discover. But if not, only half the argument has been made.

Is it time for a Labour government in the South?

2010-11-22T21:05:00.003Z

This evening, Brian Cowen hoped that the promise of an election after a budget was agreed would keep the show on the road, although that’s by no means certain. Whether an election comes earlier or later, recent opinion polls show a level of support for Fine Gael and Labour which would allow them to form a very safe coalition.

However, what’s more interesting is whether there’s any possibility of Labour becoming the largest party. This would require Labour to do the following:

• Come up with a credible, comprehensive alternative approach to tackling the economic crisis, which doesn’t penalise vulnerable groups and ordinary working people who were not responsible for it. And.....
• Convince the Irish people that they are capable of implementing it – which requires international diplomacy as well as ability at home
• Keep coalition options open, unlike 2007
• Go on the offensive against Sinn Féin and the Greens, with a clear message that neither would govern in the interests of the majority. In particular, they mustn’t be fooled into dropping hints about including Sinn Féin in a coalition – a vote for SF must remain a wasted vote.

If Labour were able to pull this off – and it’s a very big if – it would provide an alternative model for dealing with the crisis and would provide hope internationally, at a time when the received wisdom is that massive cuts are the only way forward.

Regular readers of this blog and its predecessor will know I’ve had my differences with the Irish Labour Party. I still maintain that Labour is a short-sighted and partitionist party when it comes to the North. But I put that aside for the bigger picture. Here’s an opportunity for the Irish Labour movement to show the world how it’s done. See you in Co. Louth.....

LookLeft magazine latest issue

2010-11-20T16:32:00.002Z

I have an article about the UK Labour leadership contest in the November/ December issue of LookLeft Magazine. Here’s where you can buy it.

LookLeft is a project rather than a magazine, and one that deserves support. The magazine is bimonthly. The web page has additional content including a blog. You can keep up to date with new items on Facebook and Twitter.

LookLeft is published by the Workers’ Party, but don’t let that put you off - the articles include a wide range of left and centre left opinions. It has an all-Ireland remit, plus a respectable amount of international coverage.

LookLeft provides a forum for debate for the broad left, which is badly needed both North and South.

Daydream believer

2010-11-16T20:02:00.003Z

I’ve been reflecting on a news item last week, reporting that people are easily distracted. With wonderful pseudo-scientific accuracy, the research population in question ‘spent 46.9% of their time awake with their minds wandering’. The headline called this ‘daydreaming’, although it appears to actually mean thinking about something other than the task in hand. A psychologist friend tells me daydreaming is when the mind wanders of its own accord and is subject to random thoughts, whereas more systematic thinking about something else, such as what to have for supper, is just ‘thinking about something else’. Anyway, for me they both come into the general category of ‘not paying attention’.

At first I wasn’t prepared to take the research at all seriously, as it was carried out on possibly the least scientifically credible sample population ever: volunteer iPhone users. But apparently other research has also found high levels of mind-wandering. Surely this doesn’t surprise anyone – iPhone user or not.

I find both daydreaming and ‘thinking about something else’ to be extremely beneficial. I’ve had some of my best ideas through staring into space at conferences and meetings, or on public transport. It’s also true that problems get solved by allowing ideas to develop when doing something else. Perhaps this happens more than it used to and perhaps my attention span is being shortened by the internet and modern life in general, but the results are not necessarily bad. In fact, the ability to switch off when something is of little interest is good time management, surely.

I’d be interested to know who indulges most in mental multi-tasking. Men or women? Young or old? Richer or poorer? Busy or idle? Single or not? And what are the subjects of daydreaming? Is it more common to be distracted by thoughts of what has happened in the past, or by plans for the future?

One distinction was reported. Apparently, people who don’t pay attention are unhappier than people who do. This puzzles me. Surely mind-wandering is a great opportunity for both creativity and self-preservation. One of the researchers says ‘our mental lives are pervaded, to a remarkable degree, by the non-present’. That statement opens up fascinating new possibilities for understanding how we make sense of the world and how we cope with it.

Update: The Abandoned Bicycle has reflected further on this topic

East Belfast Speaks Out – loud and clear

2010-11-10T23:40:00.006Z

To Ashfield Boys’ School this evening, for a packed to capacity and very lively ‘East Belfast Speaks Out’. The panel was chaired by the BBC’s Mark Devenport and included Liam Clarke, Martin McGuinness, Dawn Purvis, Peter Robinson and Hugo Swire – the last being a junior NI Minister, by the way. I think all the others require no introduction.

It was terrific that the organisers managed to put together such a high-powered group and equally terrific that the audience had so much to say. My main fear was that the event would be dominated by men droning on, but there were many contributions from women and an impressive lack of grandstanding all round.

The theme of the evening was ‘moving forward’ and the most comprehensive commentary is from Alan in Belfast on Twitter at #ebso (and subsequently on Slugger). Although Dan Gordon was funny, I would have preferred to do without the warm-up (clearly not needed) and a prepared question to start us off. The event was billed as 7.30 – 9.00 but ended at 20 to 10, and another 20 minutes or so on responses from the panel to audience questions would have been time better spent.

Even so, a wide range of topics were covered including:

• Governance
• The Historical Enquiries Team and failure so far to find an effective way to deal with the past
• The Cohesion, Sharing and Integration policy
• Abolition of community designation in the Assembly
• Does NI fail its young people
• The impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review
• Corporation Tax
• University fees
• The next twenty years.

The debate had its feet firmly on the ground throughout. A question about the Historical Enquiries Team promoted several passionate contributions from women working with young people about ongoing intimidation from paramilitary groups – or ‘Residual Terrorist Groups’, which is apparently the new jargon. The inability to agree on reconciliation led naturally into CSI, which gave the First and Deputy First Ministers a chance to admit that the process had been challenging and to pat themselves on the back for getting so far, while everyone else was saying it wasn’t by any means far enough. Dawn Purvis was excellent here. By now it was clear that this event wasn’t an abstract debate about constitutional niceties but a deeply felt discussion about people’s lives.

Just as I was wondering why no-one had mentioned the cuts, along came the questions about the future of youth services, university fees, Corporation Tax, water rates and so on. I have to say Peter Robinson was very good, especially as part of exchanges over Corporation Tax reduction, when he and the DFM ganged up on the Junior Minister and batted for Northern Ireland together. McGuinness weighed in about cuts to the capital budget, which Swire blamed on Labour, the global recession obviously having passed him by. Robinson and Purvis both came back strongly on university fees, Robinson saying the Assembly doesn’t have to do the same as England and Purvis quite rightly railing against elitism. In a general comment on cuts, Robinson said the Assembly would try to protect the most vulnerable – it may of course not end up like that in practice, not least due to the welfare cuts imposed by Westminster.

The panel membership didn’t entirely work; inevitably it was dominated by the MLAs and Mark Devenport had the unenviable job of trying to balance the many audience questions and comments with allowing time for responses from the panel. However, it was still quite an evening. One question was about how more people could be encouraged to take an interest in politics. With more events like this, it wouldn’t be a problem.

CSI: should try harder - but probably won’t

2010-11-09T22:24:00.005Z

The deadline for responses to the Programme for Cohesion, Sharing and Integration consultation draft has passed, and no doubt we won’t hear any more from OFMDFM on the subject until after the Assembly elections next May. Many submissions are available online and there’s a consensus that the document is dire. But why is it so bad? And why has the NI Executive struggled to produce anything at all - and arguably only done so in response to pressure from David Ford in relation to the Justice Minister’s job?

There are two aspects of our social and economic life in Northern Ireland that point towards the need for change. First, people across NI appear to want it. It’s widely reported that 80% of us would prefer to live in a mixed religion neighbourhood. This figure, from the Life and Times Survey, has increased from 71% in 1998 to a steady 80% since 2007 (2009 being the latest available), fairly consistently apart from a dip to 66% in 2001, perhaps in response to the interface violence of that time. Since 2005, the NILTS has also asked: Some people think that better relations between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland will only come about through more mixing of the two communities. Others think that better relations will only come about through more separation. Which comes closest to your views? In 2009, 88% supported more mixing, slightly up from 85% in 2005. Even taking into account the ‘halo’ effect of these questions, and their aspirational nature, these are high figures for a society that has become a global byword for division.

The second element is what I’ve started to call the political economy of segregation. Again, it’s often quoted that it costs an extra £1.5bn a year to provide public services in our divided society. Given the current economic situation, the imperative to reduce costs points towards the importance of shared services for economic as well as socially equitable reasons. For example, it’ll become less and less tenable to award funds for social housing in one area while vacant housing exists nearby on the ‘other side’. The same applies to schools. If we can’t learn to share, the alternative to duplicated services will be nothing.

Therefore you might think there would be a strong imperative for our politicians to prioritise the promotion of a shared society. Instead, we’ve had the ditching of the perfectly adequate Shared Future strategy, apparently for no better reason that that it was introduced under Direct Rule, followed by a three-year hiatus including the release of two drafts during 2009 because the DUP and Sinn Féin couldn’t agree.

I’m not going to go into the details of the current draft’s failings here, as these are covered more than adequately in the Labour Party’s critique. Instead, I want to concentrate on what I believe is the answer to the question ‘why is it so bad’? – and to the additional puzzle of why it took so long to appear. Criticism of CSI has rightly noted that the document is concerned with symptoms rather than underlying causes of sectarianism and other forms of discrimination. It’s true that there’s not enough of a commitment to integrated education or housing, that LBGT issues are excluded, and that much energy has gone into the debate over whether the Community Relations Council should be retained. All are important, but they are not the most fundamental issue.

The real problem is with the political structure. As it was expressed in Labour’s consultation meeting: ‘turkeys won’t vote for Christmas’. A political system based on communal division cannot provide the required leadership for a policy to abolish such division. The majority of our political parties are dependent for their support on maintaining the mindset that perpetuates separation, even when it appears that many people in Northern Ireland want to live differently. Who knows - if a shared society were to really catch on, people might want to vote differently.

We need a new political paradigm that is not based on territorial issues – or, at the very least, a mixed system that gives voters a real choice between parties that base their ideology on territoriality and those that prioritise economic and social issues. Then we might get a meaningful CSI policy.

Why I didn’t sign the Platform for Change statement on Cohesion, Sharing and Integration

2010-10-31T22:33:00.004Z

On Friday, the Belfast Telegraph published a letter, co-ordinated by Platform for Change, criticising OFMDFM’s draft Cohesion, Sharing and Integration strategy. Consultation on the CSI document was due to end on that day, but I gather the deadline has been extended by a week until Friday 5th November.

I’ve helped to write Labour’s response, and there’s no question that the consultation draft is of very poor quality (separate post on this to follow). I agree with the vast majority of what’s in the Platform for Change statement – but I didn’t feel able to sign it due to the paragraph stating that the Community Relations Council should be retained.

There is a very powerful argument for including some kind of non-governmental body in the CSI implementation structure. Northern Ireland’s government at regional level institutionalises the divisions CSI sets out to abolish. It’s important to remember that the previous good relations policy, A Shared Future, was introduced under Direct Rule. It’s not surprising that the Northern Ireland Executive has struggled with CSI, because a political system based on communal division cannot provide the leadership to implement a policy to abolish such division. Because state structures are inadequate, we must look outside the state for an organisation to assist with aspects of policy advice, project management, and monitoring and evaluation (although I’m not so sure about the administration of funding).

However, Platform for Change confuses strategy with tactics by being so specific about the nature of this non-governmental organisation in their statement. Form and function should follow the requirements of the policy, which are hard to fathom in the draft. If these can be clarified, so can the implementation structure. That’s why Labour’s response says ‘we lack the knowledge and information to assess whether the Community Relations Council in its present form would be the most appropriate organisation to carry out this role’.

I have nothing against the CRC, of course, and they have provided a cracking response to CSI. I was very pleased to see that it includes the very same point about implementation:

‘The CSI document does not contain a formal review of current delivery mechanisms. This makes any assessment of the proposals difficult, as no evidential base for change is provided' (p.48); and ‘a review of existing structures should follow the publication of policy principles with a mandate to ensure that the structures which emerge are fit for purpose, effective and efficient for the critical tasks required, broadly reflective of the whole community, honest, independent and transparent’ (p.50).

Anyway, here is the Platform for Change statement which I would have signed:

We, citizens of Northern Ireland from diverse backgrounds, believe that the only viable future for this region is as an integrated society in which individuals are free to define their unique identities in their interactions with others, in a culture of tolerance which can enrich the lives of all.

In this context, we express our deep dissatisfaction with the poverty of vision in the consultation document Cohesion, Sharing and Integration, which holds out only a future of sustained segregation, defying the clear public aspiration that we live, work and are educated in common.

The document dispiritingly assumes that Northern Ireland’s conventional politically-driven identities will survive indefinitely—and indeed should command respect—without regard to the much more fluid multi-ethnic and multi-faith world we now inhabit.

We call for the rewriting of this document, in collaboration with independent experts, with clear aims and objectives and concrete programmes and projects to realise them.

We are conscious that no issue can currently be discussed outside of the economic crisis and the prospect of unprecedented public expenditure cuts.

This makes it imperative that Northern Ireland become a culturally dynamic and open society, with effective and efficient public services accessible to all.

An interview with Claire Hanna

2010-10-14T09:33:00.004+01:00

See my e-interview with Claire Hanna over at Irish Left Review.

Be careful what you vote for

2010-10-10T23:12:00.004+01:00

We won’t know the full picture on the Coalition cuts proposals until 20th October, but a number of firm proposals, leaks, or indications of possible options, have appeared since the summer. This week we were deafened by middle class bleating about the announcement that child benefit would be cut for higher rate taxpayers from 2013. And today we hear that university fees in England are likely to increase, now that the LibDems have been told to put their proposal for a graduate tax back in the toy box. And who laps up the majority of university places? Yes, it’s still the offspring of the more privileged sections of society.

The anomaly in the proposed child benefit cut, which permits dual earners to retain the payment whilst single earners in a household lose it, was astonishingly inept. Therefore it was surprising to read yesterday that a survey for the Daily Telegraph still shows support for the child benefit proposal by 53% of the population, although this has decreased from 83% just after the announcement. It’s also important to remember that the Coalition is still supported by the majority. But the press coverage shows who shouts loudest when their interests are affected. And they have influence too, with a number of wobbles over the past few days , especially from the LibDems but also including the Chancellor reminding us that his cuts package will be spread over four years.

Well that’s enough gloating, because sadly the bleaters are right. Whether you take the mainstream Labour view that the deficit must be reduced but at a slower rate, or you believe there’s an alternative approach, the argument for universal benefits remains that they inspire a genuine sense of ‘we’re all in this together’. It’s important to remember that universal benefits include the NHS and the primary and secondary education system, as well as cash benefits such as the state pension. Despite undoubted flaws in the quality of some state provision, and minority use of the private sector particularly for secondary education, there is still a consensus about the value of very large part of the UK’s welfare system. And of course the other side of the argument is that such provision should be paid for by progressive taxation. Once the better off become distanced from the welfare state, this case is weakened.

Labour’s new Shadow Cabinet must now take the opportunity to defend the concept of a universal benefits system paid for by taxation. Those who voted in the last election for a party that promised cuts in the national interest, without thinking they might be affected, should think about rediscovering the advantages of communal provision. The middle classes could learn a lesson from this. Be careful what you vote for, in case you get it.

Northern Ireland needs Labour

2010-10-03T21:23:00.002+01:00

The Labour Party in Northern Ireland has launched a petition to show the Party’s National Executive Committee that there is wider support for its members to contest elections in Northern Ireland.

It’s the right time. The Northern Ireland Executive isn’t working. It couldn’t resolve the problems with the transfer test decision. It couldn’t decide how to reduce the number of local councils. It spent years coming up with a laughably bad draft community relations policy. Planning policy is driving investment away. How on earth the Executive is going to agree on a budget next year I cannot imagine. We also need new blood in local councils, which will also have difficult decisions to make over the next few years.

So please sign the petition.

You don’t have to live in Northern Ireland, we are also looking for support from elsewhere.

You don’t have to be a Labour supporter to sign.

You just have to support democracy.

Up, up and away

2010-09-16T23:33:00.004+01:00

To Stansted yesterday for a meeting, flying Ryanair from Belfast City while I still can, and pondering on their withdrawal of services from the end of October. At first it seemed very bad news for travellers although apparently a bonanza for residents. Justifiably, it prompted debate about the inability of our Ministers to make decisions, yet again, and probably made people outside Belfast wonder why it’s so easy to get a runway extension in Eglinton but not in the more politically powerful East and South Belfast. My packed flight (apart from the seats they are not allowed to fill at the moment) was evidence that Ryanair are unlikely to be pulling out for financial reasons.

However, the last couple of weeks have seen announcements of new services. Flybe will expand their operations to include Gatwick, Bristol, East Midlands and Liverpool: all except the first fill Ryanair gaps, leaving only Stansted and Prestwick without replacements. Stansted will be a loss to some, but I’m sure another airline will be interested; and Prestwick travellers can take a Glasgow flight and end up nearer to where they actually want to be. In addition, we have a new service to Cork from Manx2. Yes, we’ll all have to pay a bit more, but that’s as it should be because we should be flying less often anyway.

This quick reaction from two other airlines prompts the question whether both Ryanair and the runway extension are surplus to requirements. Anyone who has ever made the long journey into the centre of a number of other UK cities from an outlying airport will understand the value of Belfast City’s location. But that location quite rightly also restricts the scale of its activities. In my opinion the airport works best as a business-oriented operation, with smaller aircraft flying to mainly UK and Irish destinations, leaving Aldergrove - and Dublin - to pick up the majority of the holiday traffic.

Such an airport will not need the expensive and controversial runway extension. However, conflict with residents will not entirely vanish. The one thing a business traveller wants from their day in London, Manchester or Glasgow is a full day. That means early departures, as at present, and later arrivals, perhaps to 11pm. It’s possible that a combination of the economic situation and environmental awareness may lead to a decrease in the number of flights, but the timing will probably get no better. My own experience of living under the flight path in Stranmillis, and then close by but not on the direct approach in Belmont, has been that the noise is by no means intolerable. Cities need airports and they are noisy, as are many other aspects of city life. The question of degree should continue to debated between the airport operators, residents, business interests and the state.

Time to vote

2010-09-06T20:33:00.003+01:00

My Labour leadership ballot paper arrived this morning, so finally, after all the hoopla, it’s decision time. And very difficult it has been too. There’s the tough one, the working class one, the older brother, the younger brother and the black woman. Of course my one little vote isn’t going to make much difference, but I’ve always believed in taking voting seriously. So what to do?

I thought about choosing on policy grounds. Here, I am overwhelmingly in agreement with Diane Abbott on issues such as the economy, Trident, higher taxes and Afghanistan. Above all, I agree with her on immigration, and my suspicion of Ed Balls on that issue means he goes to the bottom of my list, even though I suspect he is actually the best candidate on the economy. Ed Miliband comes over well on the environment, and Andy Burnham on health and social care. I find David Miliband to be the vaguest on specific policy promises, and that may be because, to his credit, he understands that policy isn’t entirely in the hands of a party leader. With the exception of Abbott, who does have a different world view, the other candidates’ policy statements are merely symbolic, to show us what they think Labour is for.

But if policy is really about fighting it out with the Shadow Cabinet, PLP, and way behind that the NEC and Conference, what about capacity for leadership? The new leader has to take on the Coalition, win the next election, and become a credible Prime Minister. Which candidate connects best with people and can communicate a message to the general public as well as retaining members’ support? It’s been interesting to see how well Abbott does here. Audiences appear to love her, but is this because they agree with her or because she’s on the telly? David Miliband is the only candidate who can make a decent speech. Ed Miliband comes over as sincere, Burnham as passionate, and Balls as a bit of a bruiser, a John Reid for his generation. All qualities a good leader needs, but unfortunately they do not all appear in the same candidate.

So by now I am in despair. Who should have my first preference? I really do not want to vote for David Miliband as the heir to Blair, but I think he’ll make the best Prime Minister of the five. I want Abbott to make a good showing but not to win, as I don’t feel confident that she can lead but her views need to be taken seriously. I want to vote for nice Ed but I think nasty Ed might do a better job. And then there’s the overlooked Burnham, who is the only candidate who seems to realise that most Party members don’t live in London, and some don’t even live in England.

And there’s the key. Andy Burnham was the only candidate who bothered to come to Northern Ireland. He spent hours answering our questions, and most importantly he supported Labour members’ wish to stand in elections here, subject of course to NEC approval. After all, what good is it to us here if the new leader introduces lots of fab policies, increases membership, strengthens organisation and finances, and makes decision-making more democratic, if in NI we continue to depend on other parties in the devolved policy areas such as education, health and housing? Yes, if Labour win the next election there will be fewer cuts, but we won’t have a say on how the block grant is spent. Grass roots change in NI requires Labour to be involved, and that’s why my first choice will be Andy Burnham. Followed by Diane Abbott, Ed Miliband, David Miliband and Ed Balls.

Now I just need to start on the NEC........

Technology gone mad

2010-09-05T19:46:00.006+01:00

Last Monday I finally cracked and signed up for Twitter. All this technology is slightly doing my head in. I am trying to sort out what each aspect of it is actually for, and this is as far as I’ve got:

Twitter: this is the new public face of the internet. Great for news, the witty aperçus of Stephen Fry and Chris Addison, the biting wit of Alistair Campbell and the sour grapes of John Prescott. Not so great for attempts at any of these from people you may actually know. You ‘follow’ organisations and individuals, and in turn they follow you. You may also contact them directly by putting @ in front of their Twitter name and there’s also something to be done with the hash key but I haven’t worked it out yet. You can link your tweets to Facebook, where they become your status updates, all in 140 characters. After working all this out, you are paralysed by the speed and openness of it all, and find you have nothing to say.

Key lesson: Following in real life is bad. Following on Twitter is good.

Facebook: this is for communicating with your 400 carefully selected ‘friends’, at least 100 of whom you have never met. Facebook has become increasingly interactive and now it’s possible to let your friends know how you feel, share items such as news pieces from elsewhere on the internet, join a multitude of groups, and waste a lot of time on quizzes and on tending your virtual farm. It also, famously, allows you to ‘tag’ your friends in photos of your nights out. All these activities may be commented on by others. Therefore most people wisely choose a privacy setting which doesn’t allow their Facebook page to be seen by the general public - whilst forgetting they are ‘friends’ with their parents and their boss.

Key lesson: Facebook friends are not the same as real friends.

A blog: this is for expressing your opinions in as many or as few characters as you wish. Many people blog under assumed names because they want to slag their employer, friends, partner and/ or neighbourhood. As with Twitter but more so, bloggers who choose to identify themselves by their real names in open access blogs (i.e. without registration) should always remember that anyone can read their posts and comments. New blog posts can be linked to Facebook and Twitter, and visits to your blog can be monitored with Statcounter.

Key lesson: Just because anyone can read your blog, it doesn’t mean that they will.

e-mail: this used to be how we all communicated in the old days before we could message each other, comment and give thumbs ups on Facebook, do the @person thing on Twitter, and comment on each others’ blogs (and Skype each other, but I’m not going there). Now your personal e-mail account is the centre of operations for receiving information about who is doing all these things, who wants to be your Facebook friend and who is following you on Twitter, plus the occasional real e-mail from your aunt who thinks Facebook is for child molesters.

Key lesson: Do not put all this crap through your work e-mail or you’ll never get any work done ever again.

Google: our modern portal to the internet. Incredibly useful. Anything you want to know, someone else has already asked about it on a forum somewhere. Anyone you have met has done something which appears on Google and probably also on YouTube. Anywhere you want to go, someone has already been there and told TripAdvisor about it. Just type it in.

Key lesson: Not everything you read on the internet is true.

Dreamers of a New Day

2010-08-17T12:10:00.003+01:00

See my review of Sheila Rowbotham's new book over at Irish Left Review.

Women in party politics

2010-08-06T21:53:00.003+01:00

Recently I’ve been thinking about that thorny old question of how to get more women involved in party politics. It’s in my mind for the best possible reason. The party I have reluctantly re-joined has a real commitment to the issue, but like others is still struggling to increase numbers.

Of course we can all be involved in ‘politics’ in other ways, but there seems to be a particular difficulty in getting women to join political parties and then to become active members. I don’t think it’s as simple as saying politics is sexist - so is society as a whole. I’m also sceptical about some of the structural reasons put forward, for example problems with evening meetings and childcare. At various times in my life I have attended evening classes full of women, some of whom were mothers, who made the effort to come to something that interested them.

I think there are three reasons why meaningful involvement remains difficult for women. They are: the potential time demands once we are in; the requirement to speak in public; and the failure of men (and some other women) to listen to what we say and to value our contribution. All these issues are easier to deal with if we have the support of others. In some cases that support will come from women, and if there’s a critical mass of women members who can do this, then fine.

First, the time factor. I’ve said that I think women will make time for what matters to them. Unfortunately, there’s a problem with that once you sign up to a party with a reserved places system. Before you know it are on every committee going, simply because you are female. If women are in a minority in a particular constituency or ward party, but party rules insist that, say, half the officer places must go to women, then there is pressure to do more. Even without a formal system of reserved places, political parties are aware nowadays of the appeal to the electorate of a good woman party speaker or candidate. Ironically, putting limits on your time becomes harder for women. Some get around this problem by dropping out altogether. Or it’s easy to start getting ‘token woman-itis’ and feeling you are just there to make up the numbers. You have to learn to say no sometimes.

Second is the question of public speaking. I don’t know when the difference between men and women on this one actually starts. Is it in childhood, perhaps in school where the boys are praised for being boisterous and the girls for being quiet? Or maybe in adolescence, when ‘bad girls’ are loud and draw attention to themselves? In any case, the result is the interminable meeting where men drone on and on, by no means all in an eloquent fashion, and the few women present are silent. There’s no getting away from this one – public speaking is an essential political skill and if any political party wants women to develop real influence in their ranks, they should prioritise training and support in this area.

The third issue is about not being listened to and, over a longer period, not being valued by men and sometimes also by other women. Having got a baby-sitter, found the meeting, walked in and had no-one say hello, overcome nerves and actually said something, it would be nice to feel that it mattered to someone. But how can this problem be addressed? There are times when a lack of response needs to be challenged and in other cases it’s best to let it go and toughen up a bit. In some cases, a bit of humility is in order – women mess up too on occasions. My own view is that the best way to tackle this one is to keep on making contributions until they get used to you, men being creatures of habit. The question of not being valued long term is more serious. The best question is whether you feel comfortable doing what you are doing - as in any situation, if someone feels they are being used, then they should walk away.

So involve us on the basis of what we can do rather than who we are, support hesitant initial attempts at public speaking, listen to us and value our contributions. It shouldn't be difficult. Such a cultural change is good for all of us.

1970s cuisine

2010-07-22T21:54:00.004+01:00

At my recent second-hand bookstall, someone dropped off a box of cookery books from the 1970s. They were too musty to try to sell for a decent price – please please don’t store your old books anywhere damp! So I put these ones out for 50p, saying to people that they could look through them and make a note of any of the recipes they might like to try, before throwing them away.

Afterwards I had a look the unsold ones, on the way to the bin, and was astonished at the difference between then and now. There was so much dairy: cream in every sauce, and sometimes cheese as well; whipped cream on anything sweet; and eggs everywhere – one cake required nine! Far more sugar and deep fat frying, and sauces on everything. Fondue was cool. Curries were still made with curry powder and tomato purée reigned supreme. Vegetables were boiled, not steamed, and the water used for soups – good idea, that. There was also an assumption that you would make your own pastry and pizza bases (pizza being a novelty), which again was probably better in terms of taste and lack of additives. Very little was on offer for vegetarians, of course. Many of the recipes were very elaborate and some included diagrams to show how to prepare and fold the pastry, or cut the vegetables, or decorate the cake.

It wasn’t just the recipes that were from an era with different expectations. One book gave the full guidance on how to ‘entertain’, including inviting your guests (by post, mark as RSVP, and telephone a couple of days in advance if you haven’t heard), seating arrangements, how to fold your linen napkins and lay out your cutlery correctly, catering for vegetarians by providing salad or something with eggs, a note on using your hostess trolley to best advantage, and tips for overnight stays such as asking whether your guests would like breakfast in bed ‘or to come down’.

So then I thought I’d take a trip back in time and cook one of the few vegetarian recipes I found. Bean goulash – the kind of thing I cooked in the 1980s, although I had to leave out the tomato purée.

It was completely inedible.

The future of bookselling

2010-07-14T21:02:00.006+01:00

Last week I ran another second-hand book stall at work, for a good cause, all very enjoyable. But it started me thinking about the future of bookselling.

After my first book stall, I sent the proceeds to a different good cause and, a few months, later, received a letter asking if I’d like to become part of a network of ‘community booksellers’ to organise book sales on a regular basis. I refused, as I prefer not to be tied to one group. I also took issue with their use of the term ‘community bookseller’ – I pointed out that many salaried booksellers, especially those in independent bookshops, would see themselves as very much part of their community. The reply seemed oblivious to the idea that some people were trying to earn a living from selling second-hand books. So, with charities continuing to expand their bookshops with much lower overheads, how will commercial second-hand bookshops survive?

And then, of course, there’s the question of buying new books. I used to love browsing in bookshops, but now I buy almost wholly from Amazon. There are still about 1200 independent bookshops in the UK and apparently some are doing well - but I don’t even get into the chains very often nowadays. The last time I had a real bookshop browse was in York, when I was marooned due to the ash cloud and had a whole day to shop, including 3 for 2 offers in Waterstone’s. So how do independent bookshops survive?

Or perhaps we’ll stop buying books altogether. The houses of old people are stuffed with ornaments – perhaps books will be the signifier of old age for the baby boomers. What if my generation is the last to buy books in their traditional format? I’d managed to ignore the Kindle, but the arrival of the iPad was different. There was more of a sense of the start of a new era, in which it would be normal to download your reading material. The debate on pros and cons is moving from the media to real life.

Like it or not, we are entering an era when we’ll read a mix of ‘real’ books and downloadable sources. There will be arguments over which is more sustainable – the paperback that takes up resources to produce individually, or the eBook reader which was made in China and needs recharging regularly. Some will prefer an electronic device for holidays, others for commuting, but will still want to turn over the pages when at home. Bookshops – and libraries – will change in ways we can’t predict, just as they have over the past hundred years or so. Whether books will become more or less accessible remains to be seen.

But the most important question is what will happen to literature itself. Will the change in format alter what is produced? Will future generations give up on anything that can’t be expressed in 140 characters? I can’t see that happening. People will continue to write, others will continue to judge what’s worth publishing. The critics and the literary prizes show no sign of going away. In the end, reading will continue to be a popular activity. Selling books, in whatever format, will continue to be hard work, but there will always be a market.

A new approach to Northern Ireland politics

2010-07-04T20:31:00.005+01:00

The Belfast Telegraph ran an interesting series of articles on moving away from tribal politics in Northern Ireland, from Monday to Friday last week, edited by David Gordon. I was very pleased to be asked to contribute. It was a significant move to take the debate into the mainstream – by which I mean putting the arguments outwith the blogosphere, political parties, academics and campaigns. It’s not yet clear how the general public have responded – some articles attracted a few comments, others didn’t, and I presume there will be some letters over the next week.

Here are the links to all the articles, in order of publication:

Telegraph Editorial
David Gordon introduction
David Gordon
Rick Wilford
Robin Wilson
David Gordon
Owen Polley
Lee Reynolds
Peter Shirlow
Liam Kennedy
Conall McDevitt
Chris Donnelly
Naomi Long
Jeff Peel
Jenny Muir

Retail therapy

2010-07-02T21:15:00.006+01:00

To Belfast City Centre last Saturday, for a demonstration followed by some shopping. After having Killed the Bill in the company of Nick and a few Labour comrades, I wandered off to spend some money.

I headed for Belfast’s new shopping centre of gravity, Victoria Square. It was my first visit for quite a while. When Victoria Square first opened, I didn’t like it: too cold in winter, too complicated to find my way around, too much of a sense of being infill development on the way to the river. But last Saturday and it was buzzing. Full of shoppers of all ages, no boarded up sites, lively cafes and bars, and hooray, Jo Malone has come to Belfast at last, having set up in House of Fraser. Outside Victoria Square itself, the streets radiating out from Arthur Square now provide an intriguing mix of the older, cheaper shops and more upmarket options – with a good selection of coffee shops thrown in.

Quite a contrast to the rest of the City Centre. Of course there are some other interesting areas, but, in general, there are too many empty shops and too few people. It’s not that no-one cares. The road works in Donegall Place are an example of that. On a strategic level, the Department for Social Development has produced a number of Masterplans covering the city and also manages the redevelopment of the Cathedral Quarter. Belfast City Council also has a State of the City Masterplan. There’s a great awareness that parts of the city still need regeneration, and the waterfront redevelopment has been planned so that it doesn’t compete with the City Centre shops (although there’s an outlet centre in Melbourne’s Docklands, might be something to think about for Titanic Quarter).

But all these good intentions are swimming against the tide. People are spending less, and there are other places to go, especially if you wish to avail of free parking and a more pleasant environment than parts of the City Centre. The real problem is the lack of punters to support the number of shops and other facilities. Belfast City Centre needs to offer something different to get people like me to spend more time and money there. Victoria Square is a start.

You go, girl!

2010-06-25T22:20:00.006+01:00

It’s great to hear that Australia’s new Prime Minister is on the left of the Labor Party and clearly an operator, given the circumstances of her appointment. And yes, she just happens to also be the first woman Prime Minister of Australia.

Julia Gillard was born in Wales but her family emigrated to Australia when she was four. They settled in Adelaide, the capital of progressive South Australia, which in 1894 was the first to give women the vote in state elections, and one of the first female enfranchisements in the world. After a career as a solicitor, she now represents a Melbourne suburb in the Federal Parliament. Gillard is childfree by choice and unmarried; she cohabits with her (male) hairdresser partner. No children and no bad hair days – I think we’d get on. But of course the lack of marriage and children have been used against her by the media and will be again as she gets down to the tough business of governing Australia.

The new Prime Minister is clearly a terrific role model. I remember when we were in Australia for Christmas 2008, reading about her being sent hundreds of Christmas cards and presents from women who admired her. I can’t imagine any UK or Irish woman politician being regarded with that much affection. There was also great excitement for a week around that time, when both the Labor and Liberal leaders were out of the country and both deputy leaders were women (Julie Bishop was, and still is, the Liberal Party’s Deputy Leader). Much was made of that week’s Question Time, with the two women head to head. It may have then that the possibility of a woman PM caught the popular imagination.

Of course now is a terrible time to be a politician anywhere, and in Australia the next federal elections have to take place by April 2011. I do hope Gillard won’t go down in Australian history as one of the shortest serving PMs as well as the first woman.

P.S. Thanks to Seymour Major for this list of woman Prime Ministers

Note to culchies

2010-06-04T20:34:00.009+01:00

To a work residential at a location outside Belfast, set in beautiful countryside, seen at its best in this weather. The event went well and the staff couldn’t have been more helpful, including providing us with a delicious evening meal based around the theme of the day, and a late bar.

The next morning, myself and a colleague were chatting to the receptionist after returning our room keys, saying what a good time had been had by all, and how suitable the venue was for the mix of study and socialising which we’d succeeded in providing for our students. I thought it was fairly obvious from the direction of the conversation that we were both with the group from Queen’s.

And then she turns to me and says, pleasantly, ‘are you on holiday here?’

I take a look behind me, in case someone else wants to join in the conversation. No, she means mé féin. And then the penny drops – it’s the accent. The accent I forget about 90% of the time and was most aware of a couple of weeks ago when visiting England, because it’s so unusual to be in a place where everyone else speaks like me.

Leaving aside the question of how I could be either a member of staff or a student at Queen’s if I were on holiday, I assured her that no, I’d lived in Northern Ireland for ten years, that I was the fifth generation of my family to live in Belfast, and that I hold dual nationality.

‘And I do find that kind of question a bit annoying, to be honest’ I added, with typical English understatement.

Obviously she apologised and said she hadn’t meant to cause offence, but the incident took the shine off the visit for me. It drew a line. It said, if you are different, even if the circumstances make it overwhelmingly likely that you are a resident of the jurisdiction, you probably aren’t. And this is the ‘hospitality’ industry.

A more serious point is that this institution has quite a lot of contact with universities, but doesn’t seem to realise that we recruit internationally for staff, and increasingly also for students. Certainly, if we use the place again for work functions – which I still hope we will – I’ll have a word beforehand about diversity awareness.

The incident reminded me of this one a couple of years ago, which also took place outside Belfast. Nowadays, in Belfast itself, I don’t think anyone is surprised to encounter foreign residents. Some people may not like them very much, but the automatic reaction to someone with a different appearance or accent is no longer an assumption that they’re just visiting.

So here’s a note for culchies:

There are some people living in NI who weren’t born here.

Some of us have chosen to come and live here, strange though it may appear to you.

Some of us quite like it.

And some people even make us feel welcome.

Mixing it up

2010-05-28T12:31:00.011+01:00

The Chartered Institute of Housing’s report from the Independent Commission on the Future for Housing in Northern Ireland is published today. It's a terrific achievement and to be warmly welcomed.

The report's three most important features are, in my opinion, the proposal for a Northern Ireland Housing Strategy; the emphasis on the importance of housing for the economy; and the need for greater coherence between housing and planning policy. It places less emphasis than I would have liked on housing support for people with special needs such as mental health problems and physical disability.

However, this being Northern Ireland, many people will be turning first to the section on housing divisions by religious background and also by income.

The section begins with some rather misleading statistics citing the most extreme figures for small area religious segregation in Belfast’s Housing Executive estates as if they are for the whole of Northern Ireland and for all social housing. The situation outside Belfast is much more varied, unsurprisingly (there is a second NIHE report covering this, but I can't find a web link). Then, for contrast, we are told that the Life and Times Survey says 80% of us want to live in a mixed religion neighbourhood. Perhaps we know what to tell the nice person with the clipboard, or perhaps it’s a genuine aspiration but, for some, not quite the right time. Whatever the reason, as the Commission accepts, the problem has always been how to instil a sufficient sense of security to encourage individuals to make the move.

The Good Friday Agreement aspires to ‘the promotion of a culture of tolerance at every level of society, including initiatives to facilitate and encourage integrated education and mixed housing’. More pragmatically, the Housing Executive, which is in charge of allocating social housing, promises in its community cohesion policy to ‘support individual housing choice whether it is exercised in favour of single identity or mixed neighbourhoods’. That’s because the closer you get to having to deal with the consequences of getting it wrong, the more cautious you have to be.

The Commission’s consultation document last year reported mixed views about the speed of change, with some urging a more prescriptive approach but most endorsing the Housing Executive’s existing method of promoting greater sharing where there is support for it on the ground – as does the final report. One suggestion is that a different way of allocating social housing, called choice based lettings, could help housing applicants to be more proactive in selecting a mixed religion area. The economic crisis may be a further driver. The report notes that segregated housing is an inefficient use of land. It doesn’t say that the current practice of spending public money on building new houses in one area while others nearby lie empty will become increasingly untenable as budgets shrink.

The report’s discussion of housing segregation by income will be less familiar to many in NI. Housing tenure is usually a proxy for income: in other words the poorest people live in social housing, and nowadays quite often also in the private rented sector, with richer people owning their own homes or renting more expensive property from a private landlord. The housing policy orthodoxy is that ‘mixed tenure’ schemes will dilute deprivation, create better environments and encourage social mixing between people of different backgrounds. Unfortunately, the actual evidence on mixing is patchy – it appears that no amount of social engineering can make you talk to your neighbour if you don’t want to. However, there’s no doubt that the alternative of living in a highly disadvantaged area is worse in other ways, and from that point of view the report is right to point out that mixed tenure reduces ‘stigma and social disadvantage’. But it’s unrealistic to propose that ‘mixed tenure developments should become the norm by 2015’, not least because some people with purchasing power will never choose to live in them. Small amounts of new social housing (say, 6 houses, or a block of 6 - 8 flats) in more affluent areas create mix in a different way - but that might upset influential people.

The most contentious point comes when the report tries to link the two forms of segregation, proposing that ‘mixed tenure schemes could also play a part in breaking down the barriers of the religious divide. Not least because there is less propensity to live separately as people become better off’. This is a new angle on the idea that mixed tenure somehow modifies the bad habits of the poor, in this case sectarianism. Although I am prepared to be corrected, I have never seen this connection made in the academic literature and it may be significant that it’s worded very conditionally. Now it may be that more affluent areas are less segregated, although more research is needed. But moving into a new mixed tenure scheme isn’t going to be like moving to Malone or Culmore.

It has taken the Housing Executive ten years to get from commissioning a report on how to promote integrated housing to the current, still small scale, shared housing programme. Any attempt to introduce a new model fusing both mixed religion and mixed income housing will also require a great deal of preparation and should be handled with care.

On coalitions

2010-05-14T11:42:00.008+01:00

I’ve been doing my best to follow the coalition negotiations and post- general election angst from inside my own, unconnected, personal hell which always takes place at this time of year. I have noticed, however, that angst and upset prevail - no-one seems to be celebrating the result and no-one feels they got what they voted for.

Of course I would have preferred Labour to win a clear majority and form another government that would do its best to protect the more vulnerable members of society while gradually bringing the economy back into balance at a pace that wouldn’t damage recovery. But I can hear the laughter even as I write. Surely the reason Labour didn’t win was because they had lost the trust of the people. I hope a period in opposition means they can get it back.

I feel ambivalent about the general reaction to the Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition. I voted for a local party linked to the LibDems, but for a reason unconnected with what they might do at Westminster, and so I don’t feel disappointed. I do understand why people in GB feel cheated if they voted LibDem on the grounds that Labour is no longer radical enough for them. I think this attitude has been a particular problem in England, where they have no experience of coalition in devolved administrations. In Northern Ireland, of course, we are also more familiar with the situation in the Irish Republic, so we know that coalitions involve parties with different politics views coming to a sometimes unpalatable agreement in order to govern together.

So if you are a LibDem voter you should realise that your party isn’t going to form a majority government. In effect LibDem voters are voting for coalition, and this would be even more the case under proportional representation. The LibDems made it clear in the week before polling day that they would negotiate first with the party with the largest number of seats/ votes, at a time when the opinion polls showed that would be the Tories. Perhaps that’s why they did less well than anticipated.

And once you are in negotiations, what you come out with is going to reflect your negotiating strength. The LibDems have 57 seats; the Tories have 306. The LibDems have 16% of the coalition seats, and whatever the rights and wrongs of the proportions of votes, under the current system it’s seats that count. Under the circumstances I think they have done well to gain as much formal influence as they have. Of course there has also had to be negotiation on policies. Here, the LibDems have done themselves no favours although of course they will argue they have protected us form the worst the Tories could have done. I’m not convinced. My favourite blunder is the cap on immigration, which makes no sense in either human or economic terms.

Coalitions are a feature of modern political life in electoral systems that reflect voter preferences more closely than in First Past the Post. I am concerned that the public reaction to our current situation in the UK may cause a backlash against PR systems, and that a referendum on the subject may be defeated (not that we’re getting one on a proportional system at this point in time, anyway). Political parties need to educate the public about the realities of coalition and people need to reflect on this as part of their voting behaviour.

However, we can’t get away from the fact that coalition negotiations show what parties are prepared to give up to gain political power. In the Irish Republic’s 2007 general election, Labour stood on an unsuccessful platform of preferring Fine Gael as a coalition partner. The then leader, Pat Rabbitte, was adamant that he wouldn’t form a partnership with either Fianna Fáil or Sinn Féin, for different reasons. Perhaps in future we’ll see parties making their post-election intentions clearer as part of their manifestos. But the results will remain unpredictable – it’s the price of democracy.

The 2010 general election – a turning point for Northern Ireland?

2010-05-07T20:57:00.005+01:00

The dust is still settling on the results over the water, and it’ll be some time before we know the composition of the next UK government. So that’s the subject of another post. However, it was clear straight away that this was an extraordinary election here in Northern Ireland, with a number of pointers towards a different way of doing things in future.

As this is East Belfast Diary, I have to start with Northern Ireland’s Portillo moment. Naomi Long ran a highly effective campaign, despite the disingenuous and irritating claim that she was ‘only 52 votes’ behind Peter Robinson. This statistic applied to the last Assembly election, whereas in the 2005 general election she came third, with 3,746 votes compared to Robinson’s poll-topping 15,152 – a distinction that our Alliance canvasser struggled with. She’ll have to work hard to retain the seat, but for now the combination of disgust at the Robinsons’ antics and tactical voting gains from nationalists and the PUP (who didn’t stand) produced the most fantastic result of the night. As an East Belfast resident, I was also pleased because I think the result reflects the changing character of at least some parts of this fascinating constituency.

The East Belfast result, along with the Justice Ministry, strengthens Alliance’s position as a serious political player. But the failure of the UUP/ Conservative partnership to win a single seat has more far-reaching implications, in two ways. First, it raises questions about the future of the UUP. On BBC NI’s election night programme, David McNarry lost no time in putting the boot into Sir Reg, but, more rationally, Arlene Foster talked about unionist ‘realignment’. Although more unionist pacts are an option, I’m beginning to wonder if the UUP will simply fade away, with some members going to the DUP and others to Alliance. Secondly, and of more interest to me personally, is the likely fallout from the link with the Conservatives. It shows the problem with trying to merge territorial politics with a left – right continuum. I suspect that the Tory version of the experience will be ‘it’s a nightmare, don’t go there’. It’ll make UK Labour Party involvement in NI elections even less likely, but if they do come in, it’ll be on their own rather than in coalition with a local party.

My final point is about the role of NI’s MPs in a hung Parliament. We have eight unionist MPs, three nationalists taking their seat; one Alliance and one unionist Independent who is known to have Labour sympathies. All plan to make strategic choices to maximise the benefits to Northern Ireland in the new Parliament, or rather, in reality, to minimise the damage. Although this approach sometimes came across in the election campaign as irritatingly parochial, it’s also a unifying factor. In particular, it may be that the SDLP, Alliance and Lady Sylvia find they have a lot in common. Cross-party working at Westminster could help to create an environment in which we can move to a voluntary coalition in the Assembly, and start to discuss more creative ways of working together in the new local councils.

These three aspects of the 2010 NI general election are extremely significant. Together, they indicate the possible beginning of a restructuring of NI politics that might begin to move us away from the domination of the territorial issue and the sectarian carve-up – I am being very tentative here. A stronger ‘middle ground’ party; a realignment of unionism; and new partnerships at Westminster in the interest of all Northern Ireland’s people. Moving away from ethnic politics may start to look like less of a bonkers idea than previously.

This post is also up at Irish Left Review.

A view from the periphery

2010-05-03T22:23:00.005+01:00

This is my third general election as a Northern Ireland voter, and I don’t remember feeling this marginalised before. In 2001 and 2005, there was never any doubt that Labour would win. The contest in NI had no influence on this. The NI electorate wasn’t really concerned about what our politicians would do at Westminster, or who they would do it with. MPs were part of the numbers game to show where we all stood on territory and national identity.

This time, every seat counts. The polls are pointing towards a hung Parliament with the somewhat unprincipled LibDems appearing to favour a coalition with either the Tories or Labour – or perhaps a narrow Tory majority. Some of the highest profile issues such as tax, immigration and macro level economic policy have not been devolved and therefore are also of interest to us in the Celtic regions. Others, such as health and education, are covered in terms of what will be done in England, without candidates or the media making this clear. Labour have not claimed the credit for the substantial political achievement of devolution, no doubt because it’s regarded with such suspicion by the English.

So the first question in this election is: are you going to vote Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative? And the second is, if not, how will the party of your choice contribute towards a coalition or voting pact with two of the three main parties?

The first of these questions is only of marginal interest to us here. You can vote for UCUNF if you want to back the Tories, but even that vote isn’t for one of the Big Three, it’s for the Tories allied with the UUP. Unfortunately, canvassers for UCUNF have not called, so I haven’t been able to use my highly original killer line ‘I’m not a unionist and I’m not a Tory’. Perhaps the UCUNF candidates are too busy kicking themselves for signing up to work with a leader who is all too willing to put Northern Ireland at the top of the list once the removal van has left no.10, and not in a good way.

So we arrive at the second question, with the options I’ve outlined in a previous post. In other parts of the UK, a vote for a smaller party is an option as a protest vote or a strongly held opinion - Plaid Cmyru? SNP? Greens? BNP? But in every case, they are an alternative. Here, smaller parties are all we’ve got. Most candidates are telling us they’ll get the best deal for Northern Ireland, no doubt fantasising about holding the balance of power and saving the block grant here while being unconcerned about deep cuts in Sunderland or Glasgow. There’s no sense of how our MPs might contribute to UK-wide policy decisions, for example on Trident, ID cards, or tax rates.

Except of course in one instance – Sinn Féin. They won’t be arguing to protect anything, because they won’t be there. Gerry Adams has the brass neck to say he doesn’t care about the election result. Blaming the Brits is all very well, but it’s not going to stop your job going, your dole being time limited, your children’s university fees being increased and your hospital services being cut back. This time around, it’s a real possibility that Sinn Féin’s absence could put the Tories in. You’d have to be a very determined Irish republican not to mind about that.

So for the next few days I’ll watch the press coverage from over the water with interest, but give tomorrow night's local leader’s debate a miss. The most interesting aspect of this election is going to be what happens after the votes have been counted.

Stuck!

2010-04-23T23:18:00.010+01:00

The week after Easter was a bit frantic for me, as I prepared for both a conference in York and a student field trip to Barcelona. The plan was to go to the conference on Tuesday 13th and come home two days later; on Friday, I would go to the office to deal with any last-minute field trip problems before setting off to Barcelona on Sunday. But strangely enough, my risk analysis didn’t take into account an Icelandic volcano called Eyjafjallajökull.

When I first heard about the eruption, I wasn’t too concerned. After all, how bad could it get? My flight was rescheduled for Friday evening, I’d be able to stay for the rest of the conference; I’d have to go into the office on Saturday.

Well, you know the rest. Other delegates from Northern Ireland headed for the ferry, but I couldn’t bear the thought of the long journey and, once the field trip was cancelled, I didn’t need to be home for a few days. The university extended my accommodation booking and I spent the weekend shopping, reading and sleeping. By Monday morning I’d had enough.

An enforced break isn’t the same as an eagerly anticipated holiday. I’d planned to be away for two days, and didn’t have my netbook or phone charger, or any flat shoes or jeans. I only had two of the many novels I wanted to read (Hearts and Minds, and Brooklyn, both excellent) – the others were at home. I had no internet access, couldn’t blog, had no TV, and worked out how to get Radio 4 on the clock radio after about two days. It was like being a student in the 1970s again, only this time with an en suite.

Anyway, on Monday morning the Centre for Housing Policy very helpfully gave me a desk and PC for a couple of days. I bought a phone charger, got some work done, had comfortable accommodation and a nearby pub served good food. So it wasn’t exactly purgatory. Finally, on Tuesday, I cracked and booked a Wednesday evening ferry after it looked as if the damn volcano would blow again, but then the CAA guidelines were changed and I managed to get a flight home after all - thanks to Nick, who hung on the phone to flybe for me, what a hero.

There’s lots to think about as a result of the experience. On a personal level, I don’t think I’ll ever go away again without thinking that I might get held up. I’ll always take the netbook. And chargers. And jeans.

But there are wider questions. The episode emphasised just how dependent on flying many of us have become. Although of course we should all consider cutting back on our journeys for the sake of the environment, the consequences of not being able to fly at all would be very serious in Northern Ireland. Our economy would suffer, and so would our quality of life more generally.

I was also struck by how many of the stranded passengers were at conferences. I’ve wondered before if there are alternative way of disseminating information that don’t involve overseas trips but which are just as good. I don’t think video conferencing and Skype are substitutes for the face to face discussion and new contacts made at a good conference. And of course it can be great to be paid to see other parts of the world. But if air travel were to become impossible, those us of working in peripheral areas would be disadvantaged: Northern Ireland’s attempts to build a knowledge economy would be jeopardised.

Finally, the story of the changes to CAA guidelines is a wonderful policy and governance case study involving experts, bureaucrats, politicians, capital, and the public. I hope that one day we’ll get to find out more about what actually happened.

Vote for Ciarán McClean in West Tyrone

2010-04-22T19:35:00.004+01:00

My old Labour comrade Ciarán McClean is standing as an Independent candidate in West Tyrone. Here is his manifesto:

‘My name is Ciaran McClean. I'm from Sixmilecross and am contesting this election on an independent ticket:

1. To highlight Green/Environmental issues;

2. To give people a non-sectarian option;

3. To demonstrate a new way of doing politics.

I am standing in this election primarily to draw attention to practices in the quarrying industry, taking place in West Tyrone. I wish to shine a spotlight on environmental issues that the sitting MP and other established politicians have ignored for too long, and to offer voters a real option as opposed to Green/Orange choices.

On Pat Doherty's watch various developments in West Tyrone have flourished to the detriment of the environment and of peoples' well-being, e.g. the quarry at Cavanacaw, the quarry in Drumnakilly, the proposed quarry in Mullaslin (which Mr Doherty has supported) and various other dubious developments. Inaction on these fronts needs to be challenged.

I would ask SDLP voters to endorse my campaign this time around as their candidate has been shown to be a weak candidate, given the fact that he was unable to hold his council seat at the last local government elections or indeed his MLA seat at Stormont.

I would ask people, who like me have voted UU in the past, to put the environment first on this occasion as a vote for Ulster Conservative Unionist New Force will not impact upon the status quo. The much publicised arrangement between the Tories and the UU should be reason enough for voters to endorse my campaign for local solutions to local problems.

The two main government parties hope to continue the sectarian carve-up, safe in the knowledge that after votes are counted, they can implement their narrow party political interests, that do nothing for the shared future our community needs.

Both of these parties put themselves and their petty politics before real issues that affect real people.

Neither party is any friend to the environment and they are happy to cosy up with each other after the votes are counted, safe in the knowledge that they can carve up the country in a way that does not reflect the realities on the ground.

Getting an environmental issue onto the ballot demonstrates the real type of politics that West Tyrone urgently needs. From conversations I have had on this campaign, people say they are sick of the circus that takes place at every election time and are crying out for a change to what passes for politics. With choices limited people feel they are being corralled into the sectarian trenches that represent old style politics in Northern Ireland.

I put myself forward as something completely different from the usual suspects. I am a local person with a young family, who knows the area, works in the area and has an excellent knowledge of the people who live here. I have a strong track record on environmental and community issues.

My vision of politics is based on social justice and honesty for those of us who share this small piece of earth in West Tyrone and indeed the rest of the world.

I ask for a chance to take our community away from a type of politics unsuited to a modern & changing world.

On the 6th of May vote Ciaran McClean, Independent, for a better environment, in every sense of the word’.

Please sign up for Ciarán’s Facebook group and consider whether you could give up some time to help him with his campaign. Ciarán may be contacted at cmc94@hotmail.com

Parliamentary politics and the general election in Northern Ireland

2010-04-02T11:34:00.004+01:00

As we wait for the general election announcement, debate is intensifying in Northern Ireland about our electoral options. Attention is focused on the claims from the Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force (UCUNF):

By standing jointly as Conservatives and Unionists we will be the only party in Northern Ireland at the general election offering people the chance to support and shape truly national politics. We will be giving people here the chance to vote for a party that can actually form the government of the United Kingdom…. Every Conservative and Unionist MP elected in Northern Ireland will take the Conservative Party whip in the House of Commons…. If the Conservatives win the election Conservative and Unionist MPs from Northern Ireland will be able to play a full role in a Conservative Government. That includes being eligible to serve as ministers.

But it’s not that simple. Opinion polls point to a hung Parliament, in which every MP’s vote will count – with the obvious exception of Sinn Féin. And this time around it’s very serious. Labour will cut, but the Tories will cut deeper and in line with their class interests. The reality is that every other party will have to support one or the other on economic policy. There may be some negotiating at the margins, but the battle lines have been drawn.

The other difficult aspect of the general election for voters is that it’s now the only one in NI to use the first past the post system. After ten years of mostly using STV, and having canvassed in the South for a general election under PR, I find it very restrictive to have only one vote and very hard to decide how to make the best of it. So what are the options?

UCUNF: is a partnership, not a merger. UCUNF MPs will take the Tory whip and be eligible for Ministerial positions although that’s unlikely in the short term due to the lack of experience of many of the candidates. The partnership model gives both parties room for manoeuvre in situations where they may be disagreements, for example on social issues, or on measures that would disproportionately affect NI such as changes to the Barnett Formula. A handful of UCUNF MPs is unlikely to have much influence and they are most likely to be used as voting fodder to prop up the Tories’ cuts agenda.

DUP: are a pragmatic, clientilist party, which is why they do so well. They could be very important dealbreakers in a hung Parliament, especially if their vote holds up, and don’t assume it won’t. They will back whichever party’s budget they see as being in the interests of NI.

SDLP: takes the Labour whip, which as a nationalist party they don’t publicise – but should do in this election. It’s interesting that Labour hasn’t chosen to form a closer partnership with the SDLP for this election along UCUNF lines, as there would be more scope for offering ministerial positions to experienced candidates, and it would have been possible to incorporate NI Labour members into such an alliance. As with UCUNF, taking the whip isn’t the same as joining the party, leaving party discipline weaker at a time when Labour will need every vote it can get. I would like to see Labour stand in its own right in NI, but this election is about economics, not territory, so an SDLP vote comes nearest to safeguarding Labour’s budget options.

Sinn Féin: I’m sure SF MPs work very hard at constituency matters, but the next Westminster Parliament is going to be shaped by what happens in the Chamber. The most responsible thing for republicans to do at this time is to make a pragmatic decision to attend (perhaps only for one term), and cross their fingers when they take the Oath, as do English, Scottish and Welsh republicans. The alternative could be that a Tory budget goes through on a few votes because SF aren’t there, and I wonder if their constituents really want that. If SF don’t make that decision – which of course they won’t – they should not get anyone’s vote this time around.

There are some parties that are not in the running under FPTP. It’s sad that Alliance won’t win any seats, because if they did, they would presumably vote with the LibDems, which in a hung parliament would make then part of a powerful voting bloc. The Greens won’t get the necessary votes under this voting system. The PUP is not a serious contender, even in East Belfast, where I suspect the DUP will still win. My own view is that the TUV will be squeezed out through unionist pacts and other forms of tactical voting, but perhaps this is wishful thinking. I sincerely hope not.

Over the Bridge

2010-03-24T20:11:00.006Z

To the Waterfront Hall last night to see Sam Thompson’s play Over the Bridge, as adapted by Martin Lynch. The play, about sectarianism at Belfast’s Harland and Wolff shipyard, was first performed 50 years ago, in controversial circumstances as described by Culture NI:

James Ellis, the recently appointed producer of the Ulster Group Theatre, accepted the play for production. However, in May 1959 the company’s directors announced that they were withdrawing the play just two weeks before its scheduled opening; they described the play as ‘full of grossly vicious phrases and situations which would undoubtedly offend and affront every section of the public … It is the policy of the directors of the Ulster Group Theatre to keep political and religious controversies off our stage’.....

..... His play was finally staged in January 1960 at the Empire Theatre by the newly assembled Over the Bridge Productions, comprising Ellis, Thompson, Henry Lynch Robinson and many of those previously associated with the UGT. It proved a tremendous success, and toured Dublin, Scotland and England. Far from offending audiences, Sam Hanna Bell thought ‘it was possible to detect a quite extraordinary feeling of relief that at last the unclean spirit of sectarianism had been dragged before the footlights’.

Nick and I took the bus through Ballymacarrett in the way to the performance, past the blue plaque marking the house where Thompson was born. We met friends beforehand, and quite by chance were talking about the Milgram experiment, where participants were ordered to deliver electric shocks (without knowing they were not actually doing so) and most continued to do so even when the subject appeared to be in considerable distress. We were all emphatic that we wouldn’t have been the ones to continue to apparently cause pain – and yet, the vast majority did.

On one level, Over the Bridge was a stunningly effective exploration of a tragic workplace sectarian incident with huge local resonance. However, on a deeper level it could be seen as another angle on Milgram. Would you be the one to stop inflicting the electric shocks? And would you be the one to stand by your trade union comrade even if you knew the likely consequence was a violent death? And in each case, if the answer was no, how would you justify it? This is why the play should be toured internationally again. The rather over-long final scene made the point that individuals will always pay a high price for standing by their principles, but that real change would have come if the hundreds of workers who thought the incident was ‘none of their business’ had acted to stop it.

There are two other reasons why the play is important to us in Northern Ireland. First, it reminds us of an aspect of the shipyards’ history which has been airbrushed out of the Titanic Quarter approach to regeneration of the area. I hope the new Signature Project ‘visitor experience’ includes information about the trade union tradition of the yards, and about the periodic sectarian incidents, along with presenting technological achievements past and present. Secondly, the play’s programme was full of trade union messages of support, reminding us that Sam Thompson was a member of the Northern Ireland Labour Party and a trade union activist. Ultimately, in industries such as shipbuilding, sectarianism gave the bosses more power because it divided the workers. There is still no unified working class political party in Northern Ireland, fifty years later, but at least we have a relatively strong trade union movement.

Politics, power and morality

2010-03-22T09:25:00.002Z

To a New Ireland Group meeting on Saturday morning, to hear Malachi O’Doherty on ‘Integrity in Public and Private Life’. The remit of the talk was wider than this post, and inevitably the discussion concentrated on the Roman Catholic Church, but the event helped me to focus on something I’ve been thinking about for some time. Whenever I think it’s no longer topical, something else happens.

I’m particularly interested in abuses of power by people who are elected as representatives of political parties, or who are involved in politics in some other way. In the political sphere, I would define corruption as use of power in a way that primarily benefits the individual rather than those they have been elected to serve. Codes of conduct for politicians emphasise that it’s also important to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing, for example:

Members should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations which might reasonably be thought by others to influence them in the performance of their duties as a Member of the Assembly.
NI Assembly code of conduct.

Avoiding the appearance of improper conduct is particularly important when decision-making operates in small networks with long histories, as in Northern Ireland.

So how can corruption in politics be stopped?

The most important point is to realise that it can never be completely eradicated. Someone, somewhere will always be seeking to abuse their position. Secondly, to balance this, not all politicians are corrupt. If we assume they are, then people will be put off participating in politics and our decision-making processes will be damaged.

A useful starting point is to recognise that many people seem to find it very difficult to cope with power. All of us have had some kind of power at some point in our lives, and it’s humbling to look back and think about whether we have always used that power wisely. So – if you are in a position of power, can you justify your behaviour to the people who put you there? In the case of politicians, this means the voters, but for elected representatives it should also include party workers, both paid and unpaid. A politician (or party worker) needs to hang on to their moral compass, which can be hard if all around appear to be losing theirs, or if no-one is challenging your behaviour.

That’s what powerful individuals need to do in their day to day lives. People with power also need to be held to account more effectively. Malachi O’Doherty made the very good point that public opinion can be a double edged sword, using the example of Gerry Adams, who is derided for allegedly not reporting child abuse in his family, but not for having been (generally acknowledged as) a senior IRA member for many years. So, in reality, political accountability should be a mix of:

• Listening to public opinion but not necessarily following it;
• Being open about aspects of one’s private life that do not affect the job, such as sexuality or a marriage breaking up. The problem with the Iris Robinson business wasn’t the sex, it was the money and the conflict of interest;
• Following codes of conduct and, er, the law.

To summarise - if in doubt: don’t do it, don’t claim it, and declare everything. If it feels wrong, it probably is.

The WLM and me

2010-03-15T22:54:00.003Z

I’m watching Vanessa Engle’s three-part series on feminism and its impact of women’s lives today. The first episode, last week, cringingly entitled ‘Libbers’, interviewed a selection of women who became well-known in the Women’s Liberation Movement (WLM) during the 1970s and 1980s, in the UK or the USA. As has been noted by the F-word, it was regrettable that no black women were interviewed. But the authors of many of the key feminist texts of the 1970s were included, reminding me that someone had to come up with concepts that I now take for granted, for example that gender roles are socially constructed (Ann Oakley) or that rape is an expression of male power rather than sexual attraction (Susan Brownmiller). I would like to have seen more attention paid to Sheila Rowbotham’s work on women in history, too; the interview with her concentrated on her political activism as a socialist feminist.

I had other reservations about Engle’s depiction of 1970s/80s feminism, but none that prevented nostalgia from kicking in. I moved to London in 1979 and got involved in the WLM, including membership of a consciousness raising group in East London for about a year. I did benefit from it enormously, not least because I read lots of books about feminism, and never missed an issue of Spare Rib.

And yet…I walked away from radical feminism because it didn’t seem quite real. In the CR group most of us were heterosexual, but the only thing we didn’t discuss was our relationships with men. Adrienne Rich’s influential essay Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence was helping to make heterosexual women feel like second-class citizens in what was meant to be a liberation movement. Later in the 1980s, black women and working class women would say they also felt excluded. I began to feel that in the CR group we were talking to ourselves and not challenging men enough. So I moved on to a socialist feminist organisation and then to the Labour Party, where it was possible in the 1980s to synthesise class and identity politics in a constructive way. For me, the Women’s Liberation Movement was part of my political journey towards socialism, rather than a destination in its own right – although I’ll always call myself a feminist.

But what has been the impact of the WLM on younger women? Tonight’s programme, ‘Mothers’, was an analysis-free zone consisting of a series of interviews with middle-class couples, where some of the women were full-time mothers and others, er, weren’t. I couldn’t see that it had anything at all to do with feminism. Next week, the final episode is ‘Activists’ – concentrating on ‘a small group of passionate and committed young activists, who believe that the need for feminist politics is now more urgent than ever’. I’m looking forward to it.

An interview with John Barry

2010-03-01T10:15:00.003Z

After a long break due to work commitments, see my e-interview with John Barry of the Green Party, over at Irish Left Review.

Are we there yet?

2010-02-05T12:25:00.006Z

So the DUP and Sinn Féin have managed to negotiate their way through the disaster scenarios to a deal. No walkouts, elections or joint authority after all. The agreement is now out for consultation, so there will be plenty of opportunity to pick over the details over the next few weeks. The outline is:

• The devolution of policing and justice powers to the NI Executive and Assembly by 12th April; a decision on Monday about who which party will take the Justice Minister post, subject to a vote in the Assembly;
• A ‘new and improved framework’ for decisions on parading, via an OFMDFM working group, to be completed in three weeks and working with a set of five key principles included in the document today; new legislation by the end of the year and the Parades Commission to continue to operate until it is passed;
• An all-party working group on the functioning of the NI Executive;
• An all-party working group to review all outstanding matter and how they can be progressed, which presumably includes the Irish language issue and community relations.

There is of course still great potential for it all to fall apart. The most obvious weakness remains around parading - three weeks for a working group to come up with a replacement for the Parades Commission is a big ask. Wider consultation may throw up issues which are not supported by some political parties or by elements of civil society. And working groups on the Executive and on outstanding issues may create divisions between parties in the Assembly which could affect the devolution vote on 9th March.

The new agreement has two interesting potential longer term implications for our local political dynamics. First, it’s bad news for the alleged ‘middle ground’ – SDLP, UUP and Alliance – who are seen by some as an oppositional group simply because they are not the DUP or Sinn Féin. Whatever about the brinkmanship, the two largest parties can now claim they’ve done the heavy lifting – they have negotiated difficult issues and achieved a result. I can see the election literature now. Alliance can make some political capital out of taking the Justice Ministry (if they do – the decision will be made on Monday). The SDLP and the UUP (with or without the Tories or the DUP) have been marginalised and will have to work hard to convince the electorate that they could have done better.

Second, the deal highlights the difference in territorial aspirations between unionists and nationalists. For unionists, and for the British Government, this is the end of the devolution process. At the press conference this morning, Gordon Brown referred to ‘closing the last chapter’ and Peter Robinson to ‘the completion of devolution’. Although further autonomy is possible within the UK, for example federalism, this is not on the unionist agenda.

Of course nationalists think differently and for them today is another step along the road to a united Ireland. Martin McGuinness made this clear in his contribution to the press conference, although I would have been worried by Brian Cowen’s comment on a ‘federal future’ for the people of these islands, perhaps indicating that he’s more than happy with an arms’ length relationship between the two Irish jurisdictions. We may hear a lot more nationalist rhetoric from Sinn Féin and the SDLP, as they try to convince their supporters that that a united Ireland is still a practical possibility as well as a legitimate aspiration. This won’t improve cohesion either inside or outside the Assembly. I’m pleased, and surprised, that devolution didn’t fall apart this week. But we are still stuck with the same sectarian parties playing to their separate electorates.

This post is also up on Irish Left Review.

Questions about policing and justice

2010-01-22T23:30:00.005Z

I have two questions about the long-running negotiations on the devolution of policing and justice powers to the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly.

First: Why are Sinn Féin are so keen to get these powers devolved? For some years I’ve been perplexed about this. Indeed, Sinn Féin’s Ard Comhairle meets tomorrow and the party are so keen to see progress that they may, um, withdraw from talks and perhaps from the Executive altogether.

I can understand sitting in the Assembly as a tactic on the strategic road towards reunification, administering popular areas such as health, education (in the early days) and agriculture, to emphasis your fitness for all-Ireland government – although that capability has been looking a little tarnished recently. But I can’t understand the readiness to take on responsibility for the state’s legitimate use of force through the courts and police service, which is a far more fundamental acceptance of Partition. In addition, by participating in the administration of justice there is an understanding that if the state maintains order through the consent of the people, no-one else is entitled to take up this role – all ‘other’ armed groups are simply criminals.

Secondly: why is devolution of policing and justice so important anyway? Yes, it was in the Good Friday Agreement and a date was set in the St Andrew’s Agreement, but the deadline of May 2008 is long gone. We have District Policing Partnerships, supported by all parties, which are working well and have gained public confidence, ditto the Policing Board (and incidentally, why can’t the DPPs take responsibility for their local parades decisions?). The PSNI is already very accountable, given that we are a society emerging from conflict. It is argued that devolution of policing and justice completes Northern Ireland’s devolution project. But the UK’s devolved governments have different powers anyway, so it’s hard to argue that devolution has reached its end point in any of them.

However, I don’t believe the DUP’s claim that there’s a lack of public confidence in this area. My perception is that the public seems not to mind either way, but it’s our politicians who have a lack of confidence in each other. That’s not only stopping ‘P&J’ but also other difficult decisions in the Executive and the Assembly. Maybe the last thing that’s needed is yet more responsibility flung into a dysfunctional system.

Never say never again

2010-01-14T20:59:00.005Z

A year ago I left the Irish Labour Party, with very great regret. I felt it was my political home and I was prepared to devote considerable effort both to party administration (I was Treasurer for several years) and to developing the argument that the party should have an all-Ireland remit with a specific appeal to all communities in the North.

I’ve spent the time since then thinking about what to do next politically. The answer ‘nothing’ was pretty far up the list, usually followed by a resolution to spend more time in the office (sorry, Nick!), courtesy of the Research Excellence Framework.

A second answer was just to keep blogging, but to tell the truth it’s rather isolating and there are too many good political bloggers out there for me to do it for any other reason than because I enjoy it. My blog isn’t only about politics anyway.

The third possibility is single issue campaigning. I’ve never been keen on this unless it’s conducted within a wider political framework, but have joined Amnesty and also, locally, signed up to Platform for Change. But it’s more about writing letters than going along to events.

So then I started to think about whether I could bear to join another political party. UUP or Tory? I’m neither a unionist nor a conservative. Alliance? I’m still not quite sure what they stand for, apart from on community relations. Green? Not as a fairly frequent flyer and a very frequent car driver, although I respect them enormously. SDLP? I know more individuals whose views I share in the SDLP than in any other party, but I still can’t join it because I’m not a nationalist. Worker’s Party? Seems rather stuck in the past to me, and very male dominated.

The net was closing. How about re-joining Irish Labour? No chance, partly because several other people I enjoyed working with stepped down at the same time as myself.

Well, in the end I’ve decided to join the British, or should I say UK, Labour Party. I don’t intend to be a particularly active member, perhaps just go to the odd meeting now and again. I certainly won’t take part in any moves to contest elections in Northern Ireland, because something I learned through the Irish Labour debacle is that such decisions are made on a top down basis, not through pressure from members. If the UK Labour Party elite decides to contest elections in Northern Ireland, it will do so because it has calculated that there will be a political advantage. Local members’ wishes will carry no weight.

So I join with many reservations, but I hope having a party card will get me back into the swing of collaborating with the people whose views I share in all the parties I don’t feel it would be right for me to join – perhaps most particularly the SDLP. I’m a pretty mainstream democratic socialist nowadays, probably centre left rather than left, as reflected by my new party membership. Part of the thinking over the past year has been about facing up to that.

It’s always sex or money – except when it’s both

2010-01-08T00:24:00.007Z

The three golden rules for politicians are:

1. Do not take money from property developers;
2. Do not have a sexual relationship that you cannot justify to the public;
3. If you do either 1 or 2, you are very likely to be found out sooner or later.

In contrast, tonight’s Spotlight was a master class in all the things you shouldn’t do if you are a politician, or indeed in many cases a decent human being. Such as:

• Have an affair with someone 40 years younger
• Assist lover with identification of business opportunity through local council of which you are an elected member
• Solicit two donations of £25,000 from property developers and in one case lobby for planning support for one of their schemes
• Fail to declare said donations
• Give the money to your lover for a business venture, but keep £5,000 of it for yourself
• Fail to declare conflict of interest when lover tenders for (uncontested) lease for business premises, to your council
• Demand the money back when affair ends
• Use your political adviser as a mediation service to arrange repayment
• Think you can make it better by trying to give some of the money to your church
• And plan to keep the rest to repay your debts
• Fail to retrospectively declare conflict of interest and donations when husband (who happens to be First Minister) finds out, thus dropping him in it too
• Although of course husband should have taken action himself and is not without responsibility from this point onwards
• Use political adviser to arrange repayment of the cash once husband insists it goes back and not to the church, and most certainly not into your pocket
• Try to kill yourself when husband finds out about your affair
• Use political adviser to call doctor because husband is so pissed off that he’s gone back to work
• And throughout the whole mess, condemn homosexuality and call yourself a Christian.

It was far, far worse than I’d imagined – truly shocking. The Robinsons are finished and the consequences for the DUP are very serious, I would imagine. The next few days will be very interesting.

Here's a proper analysis of the situation so far from Garibaldy on Cedar Lounge. And Brian Walker is good on Slugger as the focus moves to Peter Robinson.

Moving away from ethnic politics

2010-01-05T19:28:00.006Z

The number of unresolved issues in the Northern Ireland Assembly is increasing – such as the transfer test replacement, the new good relations strategy, the Review of Public Administration and, of course, the devolution of policing and justice powers. All have foundered on the attempts of parties in the mandatory coalition to make gains for ‘their’ community, with economic and social issues taking a back seat. Recent events show that a party political system based largely on seeking electoral support from a constituency determined by religious background and national identity is not a suitable basis for modern governance.

That may be all very well, and many people may agree with me, but how do you actually make the change? The parties that appear to have cracked the problem are Alliance and the Greens. But a quick look at their web sites reveals nothing on their policy on constitutional issues; ignoring the issue isn’t the way forward. All parties have to accept the importance of national identity to many people here, and the legitimacy of the accompanying aspiration to be part of a particular nation.

It’s interesting that we are moving towards a situation where unionist parties are broadly more to the centre right and nationalist parties to the centre left on a spectrum based on economic and social policy. But this is leaves right-wing nationalists and left-wing unionists marooned (more or less – there’s always the PUP). It’s possible to vote for the ‘other side’ in the privacy of the ballot box, but the real damage is that a public declaration of an alternative allegiance isn’t easy, and most choose not to make it. The pool of political activists is reduced, with a knock-on effect on selection of candidates for elected office. Is it a coincidence that the quality of our politicians is often criticised?

So let’s imagine a political system which accepts that its members have different views on the national question, and which offers the opportunity for active political involvement across the left – right continuum to all people who identify as British, Irish, both, or neither, including minority ethnic groups. What does this mean for parties’ views on the constitutional question? It points firmly to Northern Ireland’s political parties refusing to have a collective view, and to party members having a free vote on constitutional issues, should they arise. A kind of conscience clause, as has been the case in some parties for issues such as capital punishment and abortion.

So, under such a system, what if there were to be a border poll? It would obviously upset the ‘conscience clause’ situation if parties decided to campaign for a particular result. Therefore, all parties should be legally prohibited from doing this and the government should establish and fund separate ‘for’ and ‘against’ campaigns, which anyone would be free to support without it affecting their political future in the party of their choice. There have been suggestions that the options should not be limited to yes or no; a case might be made another option, such as a co-federal relationship with both states. Essentially, a state-sponsored campaign group should be formed for each option on the ballot paper.

The adoption - or rather evolution - of such a political system doesn’t mean unionist and nationalist parties have to deny their history, any more than do, say, the older parties in the Irish Republic. The narrative would be ‘we came from a unionist/ nationalist background but chose to change, because circumstances changed.’

Bonkers? Perhaps. Necessary? Certainly. It’s not going to happen overnight, but discussion could start right now.

This post is also up at Irish Left Review.

Electric Dreams

2009-12-31T12:34:00.009Z

I’ve been watching Electric Dreams over the past three evenings. This fascinating BBC4 series has been presented as a story of how an ordinary family lives with the technology of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, but it was really about a lot more than that. As well as receiving a constant stream of nostalgia-inducing or mystifying gadgets (depending on your age), the family home was altered to reflect living conditions of the time, and an authentic car and vintage clothing procured.

To represent the 1970s, the production team actually blocked off part of the family’s house, to leave them with one living room and one bathroom between five. And, of course, that was what it was like. Comments on the introduction of the shower and the en suite to domestic life weren’t included, but surely that was a change right up there with colour TV, the freezer, computers, mobile phones and the internet.

By the 1980s, the family had been given a formal dining room, in which to hold a dinner party at the end of the ‘decade’. The garish brown and orange patterns of the 1970s were replaced with Laura Ashley chintz and fake 18th century dining suite, which looked even worse than I remember and which, in retrospect, summed up the petit bourgeois pretentiousness of the Thatcher era. The 1990s was back to simplicity and bright colours, and with a bigger kitchen, transformed from isolated workspace in the 1970s to social hub twenty years later.

The technological changes over thirty years were stunning. At the beginning of the 1970s, only half of UK households had a telephone and only 25% had central heating; the programme began with the heating turned off. Televisions were expensive and kept breaking down, so many people rented. Colour TV arrived halfway through the decade, and of course the ‘music centre’ (one per household) on which both vinyl discs and cassette tapes could be played was the height of sophistication. The new ability to record from discs to cassette tapes led to the first debates on breach of copyright, which are still with us today.

By the mid-1980s, such innovations as the microwave oven, telephone extension lines, the answering machine and early computers had appeared, along with video recorders which were no more reliable than TVs had been in the 1970s. It was interesting to be reminded that early computers required programming, which the boy of the family took to instantly. I was surprised that little said about the very popular Amstrad PC which appeared towards the end of the decade, at the same time as the CD player and the video camera. The constant complaint from the family was that 1980s technology didn’t work very well, and indeed it was recommended that video recorders should be serviced every six months to prevent breakdowns. Increased reliability has cost jobs but made life simpler.

However, it was the 1990s which was labelled ‘the decade of the gadget’, and strangely enough was the least interesting episode. Boxes of stuff arrived thick and fast, often to be replaced quickly by later models, especially in the case of computers. A fax machine, computer games, satellite TV (with only five extra channels), pagers, huge and very expensive mobile phones, a digital camera which could only take eight photos, a laptop, a breadmaker and other superfluous kitchen items, the Playstation – and, for the ‘millennium’ party, a karaoke machine. Not all contributed to quality of life, but all made a profit for someone.

The biggest event of the 1990s, and arguably of the whole series, was the arrival of the internet. Watching the family struggle with dial-up, remembering that modem noise, and watching them put together a family web page on a slow connection, highlighted the restrictions of the early days and how far we’ve come with broadband, social networking sites, blogging, and connectivity on the move including through phones and netbooks. But it didn’t recapture the magic of the transition: the sense of having access to so much information and being able to send e-mail rather than write a letter was, I would say, the biggest transformation in communications since the invention of the telephone.

There were many thought-provoking aspects to the series. It was useful in reminding us of the chronology of gadgets, especially for most of us who acquired them late or not at all, and in reminding us how expensive they were: a colour TV cost the equivalent of £3,000 today when first released, and a mobile phone £1,400. It also showed the importance of electronic devices to young people. This was a comfortably off middle class family, but not once did I see any of the children reading a book and in the 1970s programme they complained that there was nothing to do in the evenings.

But the most remarkable point was seeing how the enforced togetherness of the 1970s, with the whole family in the one living room watching the one TV, was gradually replaced by the fragmentation of the family, with children in their bedrooms watching TV and using their computers, and adults downstairs doing the same. And to see the rebellion from the children at the end of the series - they demanded a common space so that the family could spend more time together.

The lessons for the 21st century are to use technology selectively, as sustainably as possible, to enhance quality of life, and to enhance communication rather than to replace it.

Ditch CSI now

2009-12-22T21:39:00.006Z

I was too busy to have a look at the two draft ‘good relations’ policies issued by Sinn Féin and the DUP back in September. The drafts were released in response to complaints from other political parties about the lack of progress on an agreed Cohesion, Sharing and Integration (CSI) policy to replace the abandoned 2005 Shared Future document. I thought I’d missed my chance to comment, but every now and then the subject pops up again, with Alliance and the SDLP particularly keen to highlight the continuing delay.

Well, they are making a mistake, because both documents are awful and in my opinion beyond redemption. The Sinn Féin version is slightly better, but the one issued by the DUP, which is the official draft from OFMDFM, is shockingly bad. Both versions have the same poor structure, and suffer from repetition, platitudes and lack of logic; in particular, the seemingly random addition of references to racial harassment and racism, no doubt when the authors were reminded at various meetings that the strategy was to include racial discrimination as well as sectarianism (although , confusingly, the existing Racial Equality Strategy will also remain in force).

The most striking similarity between the two CSI documents is the mutual acknowledgement of the connection between equality and good relations, which is surprising given that this is usually a debating point between the DUP and SF. The relevant quotes are:

OFMDFM (DUP): It is essential to emphasise the mutually dependent and mutually reinforcing nature of equality and good relations: good relations cannot be built on inequality (para. 1.6) ; and

SF: The promotion of Equality is the foundation of good relations, good relations cannot be built on inequality (para. 1.3).

A second point of agreement is the importance of political leadership, ironic when the two main parties cannot even agree a policy. Thirdly, both drafts acknowledge the need to look outwards and place NI’s community divisions within the wider context of these islands and a diversifying population. The emphasis on learning, research and partnerships is interesting, because the old Shared Future policy was grounded in an extensive consultation process and several commissioned pieces of research, whereas CSI has very little grounding in previous work.

There are three key differences. First, Sinn Féin’s document states that the promotion of rights and respect is at the heart of this strategy (para. 1.1.) and is based on the position that division and polarisation within our society has been grounded in a failure to fully promote rights and respect for all (para. 1.9). The DUP’s parallel statement is that division and polarisation within our society has contributed to prejudice (para. 1.9). SF regard CSI as part of a more fundamental shift in social and cultural values than do the DUP.

Second, there is a different approach to new arrivals. Compare:

OFMDFM (DUP): Integration is a dynamic, two-way process of mutual accommodation by all minority ethnic communities and local community (sic) (para. 8.2); and:

SF: Intercultural exchange is a dynamic and rewarding two-way process (para. 8.2).

There follow two extra paragraphs in the OFMDFM (DUP) version, which are worth setting out in full:

8.3 Integration also implies respect for the shared values of our society. Basic knowledge of the host society’s language, history, and institutions is indispensable to integration; enabling immigrants to acquire this basic knowledge is a key element to successful cohesion and integration.

8.4 The recent and ongoing arrival of new citizens and communities offers an extra potential to change the context within which the divisions have been maintained. It provides the opportunity to develop a set of policy measures which can change the future for our ‘traditional’ communities and can help to integrate new communities into a more cohesive society.

These paragraphs reveal a different perspective on how newcomers might fit into a still divided society, with the DUP more prescriptive about the need for immigrants to ‘fit in’, in line with the current UK approach.

Finally, there is an interesting difference about implementation. Both SF and the DUP want the policy to be led by a Ministerial group, in the case of SF to be chaired jointly by the First and Deputy First Ministers, and the DUP suggest junior Ministers taking on this role. Both also intend much of the work to be carried out by the new local councils. However, the OFMDFM/ DUP draft envisages a continuing monitoring and support role for the Community Relations Council for the District Council Community Relations Programme, which will be expanded to include racial equality initiatives. Sinn Féin makes no mention of the CRC at all, with the implication that OFMDFM will manage the programme directly. Would SF abolish the CRC? Is that one of the sticking points?

So is there a way to resolve the stalemate? Northern Ireland would not benefit from either draft as they stand. Instead, the Executive needs start again, under the direction of a civil servant or outside consultant who can be firm enough with the politicians to ensure that a coherent new policy is produced. Alternatively, the old Shared Future document was very good. Why not get over the fact that it was agreed under Direct Rule, add racial equality, and sign it off for the New Year?

Economy etiquette

2009-12-16T01:07:00.008Z

Just back from another few days away, this time in Toronto, feeling rested and full of ideas. But as I emerge from the fog of jet lag, the most immediate memory is the hell of the economy cabin.

I still like airports – even when I leave my netbook at security at Toronto Pearson and have to run back for it and endure a good telling off from the security guard, whose job I would not do for any money. Even when I have to queue for 45 minutes for transfer security screening at Heathrow’s Terminal 3 on the way out, and another 45 to drop my bag at Toronto on the way home. And, most seriously, even when I am underwhelmed with my local airport’s new makeover.

Those of you who don’t travel cattle class will already be thinking that’s not your experience. The segmentation of air travel by price began with the ‘no frills’ airlines, but pricing mechanisms are now moving further up the scale. Premium Economy gives you more legroom but no other extras, and then of course Business Class and First Class allow passengers to avoid the baggage and boarding queues, and to use airport executive lounges, as well as all the pampering on board. As economy travel becomes increasingly unpleasant, it's tempting to splash out on an upgrade and travel less frequently.

But some of us remain stuck at the back of the plane, gritting our teeth and thinking about what we’ll do with the money we’ve saved, unless DVT or food poisoning carry us off first. So I offer a guide to how to behave, especially on longer flights, based on the general philosophy: ‘just because you can, doesn’t mean you should’.

1. You are entitled to carry on a bag that will barely fit into the overhead locker, which you will determinedly shove into the remaining small space with no regard for anyone else’s more modest and perhaps fragile possessions. On some airlines you will congratulate yourself on having saved a few quid in baggage charges. But in an emergency (or even when disembarking), your fellow passengers will take great delight in elbowing you out of the way in the stampede for the exit.

2. After take-off, you are also entitled to very suddenly push your seat back to the maximum reclining position, giving the person behind no warning, and keep it there until preparation for landing. Although some cabin crew may ask you to return your seat to the upright position when food is served, most will not. But if you do this, don’t be surprised if the passenger behind you feels the need to push rather hard, and repeatedly, against your seat if they need to get up during the flight, which they may need to do several times (it feels great...). Personally I never recline in economy, it’s just too anti-social.

3. Please have consideration for the personal space of the person next to you, and I would argue you should do this even if it is not reciprocated. Life’s too short to be competing for the middle arm rest; if you have the window seat then move over and rest on that one. Do not elbow your fellow passenger while trying to eat, select your movie, call the cabin crew or for any other reason short of a heart attack. Men should think about that wide leg thing they do. It’s annoying enough on the bus, let alone on a transatlantic flight.

4. If you have bladder issues (or worse), learn how to select an aisle seat at self check-in.

5. Do not talk to the people on either side of you if you don’t know them – and perhaps even if you do. Stick to the in-flight entertainment system, your iPod, or even a book. For all the tales of meeting fascinating people on the plane, you’re more likely to get someone who is boring, obsessive, depressed, scared of flying, sexist, or drunk. Which leads me to....

6. Alcohol makes jet lag worse, so drink in moderation, if at all.

I’ve left out the difficult question of travelling with small children. Airlines have got better at accommodating the needs of families, which may be why I’ve noticed fewer screaming children on board recently – although I wasn’t surprised to see a small child obviously very distressed at Heathrow security as the parents sipped their way through five or six pre-prepared bottles and then struggled to remove their shoes while trying to keep hold of bags, buggy and child. So my conduct list doesn’t include ‘don’t travel with children under, say, eighteen’, which it might have a few years ago. However, as air travel becomes more and more a matter of being prepared to squash up or pay up, many of us will be thinking about flying less often, and not just for environmental reasons.

Critical mass

2009-12-02T09:56:00.002Z

Just back from a few days in London, to read that the Tube is severely overcrowded. I seem to remember that it always was, in the rush hour, and my experience of the numbers using it last week was no better or worse than ten years ago.

No, the shocking thing about the London’s transport system, and how it’s really changed, is the extent to which it’s now almost exclusively geared up to the needs of regular users. There’s a flat rate cash fare of £4 for anywhere in zones 1 – 6, which meant my single from Paddington to King’s Cross cost, yes, £4. If I’d had an Oyster card it would have cost £1.60. I kept thinking I should get a card, but wasn’t sure exactly what I was doing for most of my stay. However, next time I visit, I’ll buy one online and use it from the moment I arrive. Another irritation is the long queues if for some reason you need to buy a ticket from a real person rather than a machine. Londoners would no doubt argue that they subsidize the transport system through their council tax precept. London’s politicians would probably add that the interests of the workforce must come first. But I’ve not noticed such a difference in other cities that seem to work quite well such as Sydney, Melbourne, Chicago, New York, Toronto, and even Glasgow.

This experience started me thinking about critical mass in cities, and how people deal with it. Big cities are wonderful. The constant energy and bustle; the world class arts and culture, which can be sustained due to both large numbers for mainstream events and every niche interest you could imagine; the employment and business opportunities; the diversity; all the shopping you could ever want; and of course the politics – it’s often overlooked that national (and regional, devolved and federal) governance takes place in cities, as do most political protests.

But if you live in a big city, you also experience the downsides. Expense, crowds, long journeys to work or to be entertained, perhaps crime or harassment. Every city resident adapts, and the sum total of this adaptive behaviour shapes the city and the individual, and for all of us determines ultimately where and how we choose to live.

An example: on Sunday, we thought of going to the Anish Kapoor exhibition at the Royal Academy. That’s quite a trek from Hounslow, especially with some tube lines not working, and one overground train an hour. We didn’t want to make all this effort if there would be a problem with admission. So we get on the magic interweb, to find it’s possible to book tickets, but it appears there are none left. A phone call confirms this. There are no tickets left for the day, and none for many other days too. So one of my old London pleasures is no more – deciding on impulse to go to an exhibition. Instead, tickets must be booked, routes must be planned, Oyster cards must be topped up. We had a pub lunch instead.

But I did manage to get to the new V&A ceramics galleries earlier in the week, which were wonderful. Swings, roundabouts and adaptive behaviour in a world city.

Middlemarch, again

2009-11-19T22:28:00.002Z

I’ve just finished reading Middlemarch for the fourth time. It’s still my desert island book.

Each time, different plot strands within the complex narrative have caught my attention. When still at school, the story of the mismatched Rosamond Vincy and Tertius Lydgate was of most interest, and I thought Dorothea rather a prig. Poor silly Rosamond, who valued material comfort and social standing equally highly and regarded her husband’s intellectual endeavours as far less important; and the country doctor Lydgate, planning a future of stunning medical discoveries but ending up writing a treatise on gout, ‘a disease which has a great deal of wealth on its side’.

In my twenties, behind a bookshop till and on the London Tube, I was won over by Dorothea Brooke’s idealism and full of pity for the way it had to be expressed through marriage. This time, I admired her plans – to help the less well off, and to assist her new husband with his work – and followed with more interest her growing realisation of Casaubon’s limitations. However, his convenient death, and the convoluted journey towards the second marriage, were and have remained less convincing. The scene when Dorothea and Ladislaw finally (oh Lord, finally – in chapter 83) confess their love for each other does diminish the novel, in my opinion.

In my late thirties, a local government worker with a long commute, my attention turned to Casaubon, Dorothea’s husband. By now I was more sympathetic about the pity she begins to feel for his personal tragedy of having worked so hard at something that turned out to be of no use whatsoever. It was also the time when I realised that Middlemarch is an historical novel, first published in 1871-2 (in instalments) but set around the time of the Reform Bill of 1832. I have never felt the political elements of the novel have been the best reason for reading it, but it has helped my appreciation of the story to think of how if, for example, it had been written in 2009, the background would have been the events of 1969. The recent past is a contested area and Eliot’s readers would have had very different views on the continuing saga of electoral reform and its political impact, which would have affected their views of the characters and perhaps of the novel itself.

So, what has been the most interesting aspect of the novel on a fourth reading, in my early fifties? To my surprise, it’s been the chequered courtship of childhood sweethearts Fred Vincy and Mary Garth. Maybe it’s because in middle age it’s possible to see that this love story is not as ordinary as it appeared earlier. Fred – Rosamond’s brother – is spoilt by his mother and runs wild at university, doing all those nineteenth-century tearaway things such as drinking and gambling. Sent down after failing his exams, he borrows money from Mary’s father and is unable to repay it because a legacy doesn’t come to him as expected. The message here is that both money and happiness must be earned. Fred achieves both, training as an estate manager with Mary’s father, marrying Mary, and living happily ever after; an achievement that is perhaps valued more when you’ve tried it yourself.

I wonder what will be the highlight of the fifth reading?

A weekend break – at home

2009-10-28T09:51:00.008Z

I didn’t really understand why Belfast is a popular spot for weekends away. I wouldn’t live anywhere else, but when at home it’s inevitable that weekends get taken up with the more prosaic aspects of living – supermarket, washing, gardening, catching up with friends and so on. Likewise, when working in the city, preoccupations about the to-do list tend to override appreciation of surroundings.

So having a friend from England to stay was a chance to take a weekend break, at home – a mini staycation.

We started on Friday evening with a concert at the Church of Christ the Redeemer at Clonard Monastery, as I now know it is called. There was some confusion between me and the English friend as he kept asking where we were going and I kept saying Clonard, and finally was forced to explain what this meant. Note to all on weekend breaks at home – you know stuff like this already, as well as knowing how to get to everything, more or less. The Ulster Orchestra and the BBC Singers performed a first class Haydn programme, and of course the church surroundings were spectacular.

On Saturday we went to the refurbished Ulster Museum. The new interior of the Museum is world class, with its new cafe and shop, and atrium which only requires a few black leather sofas to be perfect. The Sean Scully exhibition was wonderful (example pictured: Beckett, 2006) and also free, unlike special exhibitions in so many city art galleries. I even saw the man himself, but didn’t have the courage to tell him he’s right up there with Rothko in my opinion. The exhibition is at the Museum until next February, so I’ll be popping back in my lunch hour now and again.

After lunch we returned to have a look at the other galleries, and the place was packed. It was great to see it, but they will have to improve the ventilation if that level of traffic continues. I enjoyed the ceramics, including the Belleek collection which inspires wonder at the craftsmanship and a cringe at the designs. The history floor was a disappointment. The old ‘Made in Belfast’ display has gone, replaced by a much smaller section about the city’s industrial heritage, although there are some new videos on the subject. The Troubles section is superficial and, I suspect, designed not to offend; but the same could be said about the presentation of older events such as the Flight of the Earls and the Siege of Derry.

An essential part of your weekend break at home should be to try a new place to eat, so in the evening it was off to trendy Japanese restaurant Zen, in Adelaide Street, for a cocktail followed by a delicious meal with lots of veggie choices, great service, and a great atmosphere without music so loud we couldn’t hear each other. And still home in time for The Thick Of It, one advantage of living in a small city being that it doesn’t take long to get anywhere. The next day, we were out of the city for a drive to Bangor and a couple of hours walking along the coastal path, braving the weather and feeling great afterwards.

We finished off the long weekend on Monday with a short visit to Belfast city centre – first to the Victoria Square dome, where I hadn’t realised the views are so fantastic, and then to the, again, newly refurbished Belfast City Hall, and were able to take a guided tour which hadn’t been available on Saturday. The tour seemed pretty much like the one available before the refurbishment, but it was lovely to see the building spruced up and to become more aware of its Irish as well as its British heritage.

So I had a great time in my home city and now would recommend a short break here to anyone.

Is it Right to Buy?

2009-10-21T12:03:00.002+01:00

I must admit I never thought any political party would completely remove the Right to Buy, let alone that the announcement would receive as little publicity as did the SNP’s announcement at the weekend. Their case is set out in more detail here.

As many of us remember only too well, the Right to Buy for council tenants was introduced in 1980 in England, Wales and Scotland; and for Northern Ireland Housing Executive tenants in 1983. It was a major part of the 1979 Conservative manifesto and was presented as ‘Helping the Family’.

The legacy has been mixed, to say the least. Those in work who were able to buy good quality council housing in desirable areas most certainly did benefit from this massive privatisation exercise, with around 2 million homes sold throughout the UK to date. The down side was that selling off the good stock left concentrations of disadvantaged households occupying poorer quality housing - described by housing researchers as ‘residualisation’. The legislation also fundamentally effected tenure patterns, increasing the proportion of owner occupied housing and fuelling the ideology of mass home ownership and the scrabble to get onto the property ladder by any means possible. And in most of the UK all the money gained from RTB didn’t go back into building more social housing to replace what had been lost.

Councils could sell homes with Ministerial consent before 1980, but there was massive opposition to the introduction of coerced sales – including, of course, from the Labour Party. Local government workers went on strike, and in Norwich City Council, commissioners were sent in by the government to implement the legislation. Tenants’ associations also opposed it. The Tories remained staunch supporters of the policy until they lost office in 1997, and in the 1980s tweaked the qualifying criteria a number of times in order to keep up the volume of sales. Labour abandoned their opposition to the policy in 1985, and since 1997 has been tweaking in the other direction, gradually tightening up the criteria as the consequences of mass sales and continuing housing need have become clear.

Many of these changes, of course, have been enacted through the devolved administrations, and this is where it’s important to see the SNP’s announcement as the logical end point of a trend that has been most evident in Scotland. Labour’s Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 introduced ‘pressured area’ designation, which allowed councils to apply for the suspension of RTB for new tenancies (the ‘modernised right to buy’) in response to high housing need in an area. The previous administration also commissioned an excellent report of the issues around the future of RTB. So the Year Zero approach of the SNP is slightly disingenuous. Labour’s response in Scotland has been that the pressured area status approach should continue, but it’s interesting to speculate on whether they would have reached the same point as the SNP eventually.

It’s also arguable that if you’re going to make such a change, now is the time to do it, with house sales falling due to unemployment and lack of access to mortgage finance, as well as a certain amount of caution about future prospects. It must be the first time since the policy was introduced that there are more people thinking they might need social housing one day, than are planning to buy the one they already occupy. The SNP are not taking much of a political risk here.

So is it the right thing to do? It certainly adds to the very short list of policy differences under devolution, and shows that devolved governments do have real power if they choose to use it. My only concern is about whether removing the RTB will yet again increase residualisation, as people who would have bought their council or housing association houses move away to buy and are replaced by a family with greater social needs. Although the benefits or otherwise of ‘mixed tenure’ developments are unclear and contested, we do know that concentrations of deprivation are very bad news indeed.

I opposed the RTB in the 1980s, and my heart is very much with the SNP’s proposal. But my head hasn’t quite caught up yet.

The future of the Left in Northern Ireland

2009-10-10T19:21:00.004+01:00

To the Northern Ireland Regional Conference of the Workers’ Party this morning, for an interesting debate on ‘Opportunities for the Left in Northern Ireland’. The speakers were Gerry Grainger from the Workers’ Party; Michael Robinson from the Irish Labour Group in Northern Ireland; and Chris McGimpsey from the Ulster Unionist Party (as it still is – the link with the Tories is an electoral pact, not a merger).

There was general acknowledgement from the speakers that the Left remains fragmented, although McGimpsey, in the most interesting contribution, said wryly that left-wing unionists are in the biggest mess. Gerry Grainger was good at setting the context , although he may have over-done the crisis of capitalism bit. Neoliberalism is by no means going to go away, rather, the experience of the past two years shows we’ll see a new and more vicious form as the state focuses on protecting structures of capital accumulation at the expense of jobs and public services. Grainger felt that the current situation provides opportunities for the Left, and Robinson agreed, giving the example of how the NI Executive’s Investment Strategy needs to be taken out from behind the closed doors of the Strategic Investment Board and placed back into the democratic arena of the Assembly, for revision in response to the current economic climate. Trouble is, Michael, you need to be an MLA to contribute to that debate, and your party has banned its members from standing in elections in NI.

Grainger asked some key questions: how should we define ‘the Left’? What should be the role of the trades unions? How should the Left approach the issue of the sectarian divide? And, perhaps most crucially, how can the different between the social democratic and the revolutionary Left be acknowledged, to allow both groups to work together to protect jobs and services without the almost inevitable falling out? McGimpsey thought the UUP’s new link with the Tories would cost the UUP working class votes in areas like the Shankill, and might open up opportunities for other parties. He advocated a broad Left alliance based on specific issues, an idea which was supported by many speakers from the floor. Other issues raised included the possibility of a ‘think tank’ group to research and publicise a Left, non-sectarian viewpoint (widely welcomed); tackling political apathy; different views on whether we need another Civic Forum; the need to recruit more young people; and whether the trades unions might be best placed to lead a ‘Left’ campaign.

The question of electoral activity was fudged. Someone from the British Labour Party suggested negotiating an agreed list of candidates but this was not taken up by other speakers and Robinson, unsurprisingly, said he ‘doesn’t have a fetish’ about electoralism. But whether to put time and energy into standing for election could be a fault line in a Left alliance and is fundamental to an agreement on tactics – do you put pressure on others from outside decision-making structures, or do you try to get in there, form wider partnerships if necessary, and make changes rather than rely on others to see the light.

The Workers’ Party are to be commended for organising such open access events, and getting around 100 people to turn out on a Saturday morning. I hope they will be able to pursue the idea of a broad Left alliance.

Survival of the fittest

2009-09-30T20:38:00.006+01:00

I had a very negative reaction to the Dove ‘evolution’ video that’s doing the rounds today. It’s a sophisticated marketing tool which says nothing women (and many men) don't already know – that models used for advertising and women’s magazine features are skillfully made up and the resulting images may then be digitally enhanced.

Dove says: ‘No wonder our perception of beauty is distorted’ and refers to something called the ‘Dove self-esteem fund’ for young women, which of course is welcome – but who benefits from women’s aspirations towards these distorted images? Well, Dove is part of the Unilever group, and sells skin and hair care products. One of their ranges is ProAge, an intensive moisturising collection aimed at older women. Dove may focus their charitable work on the young, but they also play on older women’s insecurities to make us believe we need special shampoos, deodorants (FFS!) serums and body moisturisers, to make ourselves look or at least feel younger. So I take the claim that ‘beauty comes in all ages, shapes and sizes’ with a very large pinch of salt.

Any woman putting on her make-up in the morning knows that images of women in advertising are not ‘real’. We know they are used to sell us clothes, make-up and other fancy things, and many of us go along with it because it’s fun, and because our self-esteem is not solely connected to our appearance. But others really do suffer.

The reasons why ‘beauty’ marketing contributes to poor body image in women are more complex than that we don’t understand what’s going on. The truth is that society values youth and beauty, which is fine by me but the other side of the coin is not, namely that fat, ugly and older women are ignored or derided - often by both sexes. If a woman spends time and money on trying to improve her appearance, it may be an entirely rational reaction to the responses she observes around her. This is particularly so in some workplaces or social circles, or at certain times in women’s lives, and sometimes also, sadly, in families.

So give us more credit, Dove. It’s still survival of the 'fit'test out there and no marketing campaign by a brand which relies on this will lead to real change. When men – and other women – start treating everyone with respect, without derogatory reference to their looks, then women will stop being insecure and a bar of soap will just be a bar of soap. Until then, it holds a dream.

No comment(s), for once

2009-09-27T23:02:00.011+01:00

Much excitement in our small part of the world over the beginnings of the SDLP leadership race. A week ago, Mark Durkan announced that he will stand down as SDLP leader if he’s re-elected as an MP, in order to concentrate on his work at Westminster, where significant cuts in public spending will be made. And that the SDLP, as a nationalist party, shouldn’t be led by an MP in the UK Parliament, where he intends to be doing all this valuable work.

The next day, we are told that’s that, there will be no more to say until after the next election. Two days later, leadership nominations open on November 1st, apparently for a decision at the SDLP conference in February - he’s now going earlier. Today, a week after Durkan’s original announcement, the front runners are Alasdair McDonnell and Margaret Ritchie.

I find it very hard to have an opinion on this contest. I’m curious about the direction the SDLP will take after the votes are cast: towards Fianna Fáil, towards Irish Labour, or carrying on muddling through as at present. I’d like to think that the new leader will help to redefine Irish nationalism and identity through addressing the tensions in the party between nationalism and democratic socialism. I’d welcome stronger alliances with other parties in both the Republic and Britain. I hope the party will move further towards the non-sectarian ‘middle’ of NI politics, assisted by the removal of community designation in the Assembly. The really interesting stuff begins next February - at a time when the Executive will be under increasing pressure to make cuts, and the bigger question may well be whether it can survive that pressure or whether we’ll see the return of direct rule.

Truth is, the SDLP leadership contest is not my fight. So I’ve decided to say no more about it on this or any other blog. I’ll just sit back, pour myself a large one and watch the story unfold.

See also an excellent analysis from Roe Valley Socialist