Sinn Fein - Shared Future, or a Segregated one?

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

Far too early to start on about mixed housing.

So what, another generation of segregation will make things better?
There are mixed areas all across NI already. It's only the social housing that has been segregated. And nobody will be forced into a mixed housing development against their will - it's an opt-in scheme.

You'd be at home i'm sure.

Ah that one made me laugh. 

[Evil Genius]

Interesting article in the Irish News from last week, which deserves a wider audience. It seems that for all Sinn Fein's yearning for a "Shared Future" when it comes to Sport (i.e. The Maze), they're somehow not quite so keen on the concept when it comes to Housing. Might it be that they don't want people to leave the ghetto, in case they also leave behind the ghetto politics which go with it? Perish the thought...

(Btw, for any of "The Usual Suspects" thinking of trying to discredit the piece by going off on one about the Author - Newton Emerson - there's no need, it's understood)

So let me get this right, you object to the SF assertion that housing should be allocated in accordance to need because in this case it would mean 80% of the new houses would be allocated to people from the nationalist part of the community?

If you must put words in my mouth, at least try to get somewhere close to what I think, rather than that utter fabrication. 

Let's play this out.

Lets say there are 8500 nationalists on the waiting list and 1500 unionists (rough figures but the ratio is approximately correct) and 1000 people can be housed in this new development.

Under the SF proposals that would mean 800 would go to the nationalists and 200 would go to the unionists. That would reduce the nationalist waiting list by 9.4% and the unionist waiting list by 13%.

Presumably EG and the intellectual heavyweight known as Newt would have them allocated 50-50 which would result in 500 each or satisfy 5.8% of nationalist need and 33% of unionist need.

I think that trick was tried somewhere before. 

It's quite simple. If there are 1,000 places available, they should go to the first thousand on the top of the list (i.e. those in most need), who don't mind living in a mixed development.
Personally, I couldn't give a shite if those 1,000 were all RC's, Prods or Monkey Worshippers. Nor do I care if that would alter the religious balance of the general area either way.
More importantly, neither (self-evidently) do the people who would be living in the new homes.

For all that Spin Fein try to dress it up with soundbites like "objective community need" etc, it is quite clear that when they object to what is being proposed, it is because they fear the effect of people, especially those in social housing, being able to get out of the ghettos where they are currently forced to live, since that might also liberate them from the "ghetto mentality" which goes with it. For if people were able to live and work in decent conditions in mixed areas, they are less likely to be seduced by the tub-thumpers and flag-wavers etc who are forever pinning the blame for all of life's woes on "themmuns over there".

Consequently, they are no different from e.g. their DUP counterparts when they conduct sectarian headcounts of their own, in an attempt to maintain/bolster their own vested political interests (other, perhaps, in dressing it up more cleverly in sociological mumbo jumbo).

Otherwise, why would Michelle Gildernew, MP for Fermanagh & South Tyrone, have objected to the shared Future project in a town/county (Enniskillen/Fermanagh) where the religious breakdown is close to 50:50, community relations are generally good and many people already live in mixed developments, both social and private?

To paraphrase Shakespeare: "A plague on both their Housing Policies" 

P.S. If you are going to cast gratuitous and sarcastic insults at Emerson such as "intellectual heavyweight", at least try to deconstruct and rebut his reasoning. Otherwise, your own credibility ends up so far down the pan as to be round the u-bend and on its way to where it belongs...

[mylestheslasher]

Am I the only one here that thinks that the handing out of social housing should be nothing  to do with religion. The council should not even know what the religion of an applicant is! Each persons circumstances should be investigated and a decision made based on that alone. The curing of this problem should start in schools. I believe religion should not be thought at school and religious groups should have no input into how schools are run. There should be no catholic schools or protestant schools - just schools. Parents who wish their children to get religious tuition should have to pay extra for an after hours class. 1 generation later your sectarian problem gets reduced.

[Donagh]

It's quite simple. If there are 1,000 places available, they should go to the first thousand on the top of the list (i.e. those in most need), who don't mind living in a mixed development.
Personally, I couldn't give a shite if those 1,000 were all RC's, Prods or Monkey Worshippers. Nor do I care if that would alter the religious balance of the general area either way.
More importantly, neither (self-evidently) do the people who would be living in the new homes.

So you're in agreemment with SF policy then (as opposed to what Emerson is misrepresenting it to be)? Good to hear it - the OSS campaign is working wonders.

[Maguire01]

Far too early to start on about mixed housing.

So what, another generation of segregation will make things better?
There are mixed areas all across NI already. It's only the social housing that has been segregated. And nobody will be forced into a mixed housing development against their will - it's an opt-in scheme.

You'd be at home i'm sure.

Do you want to explain this one?

Maybe GDA can help me out because this one has gone over my head as well.

[Donagh]

Maybe GDA can help me out because this one has gone over my head as well.

GDA is half-way down his first pint in Kellys Cellars. I'll pass on the query 

[Maguire01]

Am I the only one here that thinks that the handing out of social housing should be nothing to do with religion. The council should not even know what the religion of an applicant is! Each persons circumstances should be investigated and a decision made based on that alone.

It shouldn't myles, but the problem is there already and it's not appropriate to house a Catholic family in a loyalist estate or vice versa. But yes, in my opinion, any new developments should be mixed before they become either one or the other. And houses should be allocated purely on housing need.

The curing of this problem should start in schools. I believe religion should not be thought at school and religious groups should have no input into how schools are run. There should be no catholic schools or protestant schools - just schools. Parents who wish their children to get religious tuition should have to pay extra for an after hours class. 1 generation later your sectarian problem gets reduced.

Generally schools are either Catholic Schools or State schools that are mixed (but generally Protestant due to most Catholic children attending the Catholic Schools).
Personally i don't think it's the content of a RE class that is the stumbling block. If the children all went to the same school, the actual 'religion' aspect would be as irrelevant as it is in general society.

[Evil Genius]

Am I the only one here that thinks that the handing out of social housing should be nothing  to do with religion.

No.

The council should not even know what the religion of an applicant is!

Agreed (other than is strictly necessary to ensure policy is being evenly applied).

Each persons circumstances should be investigated and a decision made based on that alone.

Agreed.

The curing of this problem should start in schools. I believe religion should not be thought at school and religious groups should have no input into how schools are run. There should be no catholic schools or protestant schools - just schools. Parents who wish their children to get religious tuition should have to pay extra for an after hours class. 1 generation later your sectarian problem gets reduced.

Agreed, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if very many other NI people agreed as well. Yet the No.1 priority of Catriona Ruane, the current SF Minister for Education, is to abolish the segregation of NI's schoolchildren by academic selection at 11, not to abolish their segregation along sectarian grounds at the age of five.  

[Maguire01]

Maybe GDA can help me out because this one has gone over my head as well.

GDA is half-way down his first pint in Kellys Cellars. I'll pass on the query 

Anyone else understand it then?

[Main Street]

Am I the only one here that thinks that the handing out of social housing should be nothing  to do with religion. The council should not even know what the religion of an applicant is! Each persons circumstances should be investigated and a decision made based on that alone.

That's like what Dublin corporation had, some sort of points system. A homeless family with more children got more points.
Even talk of couples having to breed early and often to gain points and move up the ladder.
Like a cattle mart.

Social housing should simply be declared a civil right, available to buy at a fair price which relates to average minimum income.
Let the housing authority do the maths with a calculator and come up with an estimate of the nr of houses that needs to be built each year.  Have fixed prices, within scales of value, for land for housing.

[carribbear]

Am I the only one here that thinks that the handing out of social housing should be nothing  to do with religion. The council should not even know what the religion of an applicant is! Each persons circumstances should be investigated and a decision made based on that alone.

That's like what Dublin corporation had, some sort of points system. A homeless family with more children got more points.
Even talk of couples having to breed early and often to gain points and move up the ladder.
Like a cattle mart.

Social housing should simply be declared a civil right, available to buy at a fair price which relates to average minimum income.
Let the housing authority do the maths with a calculator and come up with an estimate of the nr of houses that needs to be built each year.  Have fixed prices, within scales of value, for land for housing.

While I don't disagree that everyone should have the right to a home I do take issue with the fact that just because you breed makes it an automatic right. Why should some pay through the nose for their homes and others get it by hitting the jackpot on the baby train? If anything that practice should be discouraged, handing out housies doesnt deter, you just get more who'll try it.

[Minder]

The majority of people in Social Housing have no interest in buying because if they worked they would have to pay rent. They are quite happy to sit on the dole and lap up the many benefits available and get their rent paid,not happy with your kitchen? Create a bit of damage and you will get a new one "on the house", pardon the pun.

[Evil Genius]

It's quite simple. If there are 1,000 places available, they should go to the first thousand on the top of the list (i.e. those in most need), who don't mind living in a mixed development.
Personally, I couldn't give a shite if those 1,000 were all RC's, Prods or Monkey Worshippers. Nor do I care if that would alter the religious balance of the general area either way.
More importantly, neither (self-evidently) do the people who would be living in the new homes.

So you're in agreemment with SF policy then (as opposed to what Emerson is misrepresenting it to be)? Good to hear it - the OSS campaign is working wonders.

Emerson is NOT misrepresenting it. The Minutes of the Assembly Debate on Tue.27/01/09 make it quite clear that for all the fine words of Anderson et al, SF are blocking the Assembly from proceeding with a Housing Policy centred on Cohesion, Sharing and Integration etc.
Indeed, as the closing remarks to the debate by Alban McGuinness and David Ford demonstrate, the SDLP, UUP and Allaince Parties can all agree on this, even the DUP can find words of support for it, whereas SF are increasingly isolated:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2009-01-27.5.1

And if you want an explanation for that, look no further than Emerson's analysis.

Speaking of which, do you care to analyse exactly how/where he is going wrong in his criticism of Martina Anderson, or do you prefer to rely on bluster?

(No hurry, btw, I hear a bottle of wine calling my name, so your reply can wait...)

[Myles Na G.]

Am I the only one here that thinks that the handing out of social housing should be nothing  to do with religion. The council should not even know what the religion of an applicant is! Each persons circumstances should be investigated and a decision made based on that alone.

That's like what Dublin corporation had, some sort of points system. A homeless family with more children got more points.
Even talk of couples having to breed early and often to gain points and move up the ladder.
Like a cattle mart.

Social housing should simply be declared a civil right, available to buy at a fair price which relates to average minimum income.
Let the housing authority do the maths with a calculator and come up with an estimate of the nr of houses that needs to be built each year.  Have fixed prices, within scales of value, for land for housing.

Social housing in the north is also allocated on a points system, with the Housing Executive and the various Housing Associations taking people from the Common Selection Scheme. The religion of applicants is generally known to the landlords, as prospective tenants are asked if they'd prefer to live in a loyalist / nationalist area. Those indicating that they'd like to live in the new shared future housing developments don't get extra brownie points for this. The houses are still allocated on a points system. The system has worked well over the years. There hasn't been a single case of sectarian discrimination brought against the Housing Executive in the 35 years of its existence. The system has worked so well that the government plans to give the housing function back to the councils in a few years. If you remember, the Housing Executive was set up after the housing function was removed from the councils because they'd shown themselves incapable of operating it in an evenhanded manner. 

[glens abu]

It's quite simple. If there are 1,000 places available, they should go to the first thousand on the top of the list (i.e. those in most need), who don't mind living in a mixed development.
Personally, I couldn't give a shite if those 1,000 were all RC's, Prods or Monkey Worshippers. Nor do I care if that would alter the religious balance of the general area either way.
More importantly, neither (self-evidently) do the people who would be living in the new homes.

So you're in agreemment with SF policy then (as opposed to what Emerson is misrepresenting it to be)? Good to hear it - the OSS campaign is working wonders.

Emerson is NOT misrepresenting it. The Minutes of the Assembly Debate on Tue.27/01/09 make it quite clear that for all the fine words of Anderson et al, SF are blocking the Assembly from proceeding with a Housing Policy centred on Cohesion, Sharing and Integration etc.
Indeed, as the closing remarks to the debate by Alban McGuinness and David Ford demonstrate, the SDLP, UUP and Allaince Parties can all agree on this, even the DUP can find words of support for it, whereas SF are increasingly isolated:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2009-01-27.5.1

And if you want an explanation for that, look no further than Emerson's analysis.

Speaking of which, do you care to analyse exactly how/where he is going wrong in his criticism of Martina Anderson, or do you prefer to rely on bluster?

(No hurry, btw, I hear a bottle of wine calling my name, so your reply can wait...)

Emerson's analysis  he is only interested in sinn fein bashing a bit like yourself,tell me how well Stoneyford worked when people from west Belfast moved there so they could live in a mixed area