Sinn Fein - Shared Future, or a Segregated one?

[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 where does SF stand on our shared future? Eye of Newt...
By Newton Emerson
05/02/09

Last month, thanks to a £3.4 million grant from the Housing Executive's 'Shared Future' scheme, Clanmil Housing Association purchased 22 properties on a 140-unit private development near Lisburn for use as mixed social housing.

Last week, in the assembly and on the pages of An Phoblacht, Sinn Fein MLA Martina Anderson attacked the whole concept of mixed social housing in the most vehement terms.

Her closing remarks in the assembly were: "Meeting the needs of people is being undermined by the pursuit of a flawed shared future agenda that prioritises the social engineering of mixed communities over the objective need of those who are homeless. Shame on it."

Her subsequent elaboration in An Phoblacht, audaciously headlined "New strategy must be founded on equality", was so extraordinary that it must be quoted at length.

"Shared Future refuses to even acknowledge the reality that sectarianism was actively promoted by both the unionist regime and the British state," Ms Anderson wrote.

"The securocrats who dreamed it up did so to airbrush their own role in the conflict from the history books. Instead, they would have us believe that the conflict took place simply because Catholics and Protestants refused to live together."

"Unfortunately," Ms Anderson went on, "this policy still continues to influence some of those in public office, which is why we see the prioritising of artificially engineered 'mixed' communities over the objective needs of our people for social housing."

"Sinn Fein's position is clear. The allocation of housing and the administration of any government policy should be done on the basis of need, not creed."

It requires quite an effort of intellectual gymnastics to begin an argument with the premise that the state forced us to live apart and end it by complaining that the state is forcing us to live together.

Ms Anderson's case makes slightly more sense (or at least sounds slightly less deranged) when you realise that by "objective need" Sinn Fein means "objective community need". The SDLP has also flirted with this dubious concept, along with some unionists and campaign groups such as the Committee for the Administration of Justice.

The implications of "objective community need" can be seen in the row over social housing on the Crumlin Road Jail site in north Belfast.

There are Catholic and Protestant people on the waiting list but Catholics make up around 80 per cent of the total. Working through that list on the basis of objective need would result in a Catholic-majority mixed area. However, under the concept of objective community need it is the Catholic "community" itself which has the need and therefore all the houses should be allocated to Catholics.

Tellingly, in response to this Sinn Fein demand, the DUP now insists that no social housing should be built on the site it all. It appears that scuppering mixed areas is what tops both Sinn Fein and the DUP's list of priorities, if I can say so without sounding like a securocrat.

It must also be said that Sinn Fein takes this line consistently. When the first Shared Future housing scheme opened outside Enniskillen in 2006, Fermanagh MP Michelle Gildernew damned it in similar terms.

An argument linking "British state" promotion of sectarianism to a need for segregated housing is so bizarre that it has to be a pure red herring.

Of more interest is Ms Anderson's objection to "social engineering" and "artificially engineered 'mixed' communities".

Sinn Fein does not normally object to social engineering. Quite the opposite, in fact. But there is no social engineering at work here in any case. Shared Future housing is filled from the top of the waiting list down, with applicants merely asked if they mind mixed neighbours. Nobody ever minds. The truth is that it is segregated housing, which has to be artificially engineered, by slotting people into separate waiting lists regardless of their needs or wishes. All Housing Executive estates were once casually mixed by default, as most private developments are now. It is only the intrusion of aggressive tribalism and control-freak "community" politics which, left unchallenged, begins to divide an area. Mixed housing may require special protection from this threat but that does not make it artificial or unnatural. It just makes it vulnerable. Aren't we supposed to protect the vulnerable?

Ms Anderson can bend whatever argument she likes around the construction of mixed housing. The argument which best fits the facts is that Sinn Fein actively wants the construction of segregated ghettoes.

newton@irishnews.com
 

[glens abu]

typical newton sh1te what is needed is social housing in places like north Belfast not shared housing in places like Lisburn, when Catholics have moved from west Belfast to Stoneyford on the outskirts of Lisburn they have been burnt and intimidated out

[Minder]

I had not bothered voting at the last election and it came to about 7pm on polling day and had a few Sinn Fein goons at the door informing me i hadnt voted and to "get it sorted" basically ! The same tosser candidates you dont see from one year to the next unless they are in the Andytown News bemoaning the fact that it is "shaackin'" that one of their constituents has had their DLA cut.....

[glens abu]

must live up the Shankill if you dont see Shinners at your door,as they call at my house at least 3/4 times a year plus have a 3 monthly bulletin and I live in Glengormley which is a mixed area

[Minder]

must live up the Shankill if you dont see Shinners at your door,as they call at my house at least 3/4 times a year plus have a 3 monthly bulletin and I live in Glengormley which is a mixed area

I am quite sure i dont, i have a fella that arrives plastered every Thursday selling An Phoblacht if that counts.......

[Maguire01]

typical newton sh1te what is needed is social housing in places like north Belfast not shared housing in places like Lisburn, when Catholics have moved from west Belfast to Stoneyford on the outskirts of Lisburn they have been burnt and intimidated out

I don't think Newton is opposing social housing in North Belfast, is he?

And the whole point of encouraging mixed areas if that one side won't be intimidated out by the other. There are plenty of Catholics requiring housing in Lisburn as well.


What i would like to know is what Martina Anderson's plan would be to promote a 'shared future'. It's very easy to say 'No' to everything - Paisley did it for enough years. It's another case altogether to come up with a viable alternative.

[glens abu]

no Newton is just opposing the Shinners thats his job if they had wanted shared housing in Lisburn he would have wanted it in Portadown

[Roger]

They should start with shared schools. 

[glens abu]

must live up the Shankill if you dont see Shinners at your door,as they call at my house at least 3/4 times a year plus have a 3 monthly bulletin and I live in Glengormley which is a mixed area

I am quite sure i dont, i have a fella that arrives plastered every Thursday selling An Phoblacht if that counts.......

if he calls at your house you must buy it.

[Maguire01]

Let's play this out.

Lets say there are 10,000 nationalists on the waiting list and 2000 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 8% and the unionist waiting list by 10%.

Presumably EG and the intellectual heavyweight known as Newt would have them allocated 50-50 which would result in 1000 each or satisfy 10% of nationalist need and 100% of unionist need.

But the article said that any housing would still be allocated on the basis of the waiting list. Therefore those with the highest points are allocated the housing, regardless of their religion. It's not about designing an appropriate split.

That may well mean that 95% of a North Belfast scheme would still be Catholic. The 'shared future' agenda just means that a new development wouldn't be planned as exclusively Catholic or Protestant.

[Minder]

must live up the Shankill if you dont see Shinners at your door,as they call at my house at least 3/4 times a year plus have a 3 monthly bulletin and I live in Glengormley which is a mixed area

I am quite sure i dont, i have a fella that arrives plastered every Thursday selling An Phoblacht if that counts.......

if he calls at your house you must buy it.

My wife buys it the odd time as she "feels sorry" for him, it goes straight to the bin but he puts it through the letterbox regardless of anyone being in or not so the money aspect obviously isnt important. A cosmetic exercise?

[glens abu]

must live up the Shankill if you dont see Shinners at your door,as they call at my house at least 3/4 times a year plus have a 3 monthly bulletin and I live in Glengormley which is a mixed area

I am quite sure i dont, i have a fella that arrives plastered every Thursday selling An Phoblacht if that counts.......

if he calls at your house you must buy it.

My wife buys it the odd time as she "feels sorry" for him, it goes straight to the bin but he puts it through the letterbox regardless of anyone being in or not so the money aspect obviously isnt important. A cosmetic exercise?

you should grow a pair and tell him to f##k off

[Donagh]

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?

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. 


Maguire:
SF had no objection to the HE allocating all of the house on the Crum site according to need. It was the DUP and that clampit that runs the NI soccer supporters club who stepped in to make sure it was gerrymadered in favour of unionist need.

[Minder]

must live up the Shankill if you dont see Shinners at your door,as they call at my house at least 3/4 times a year plus have a 3 monthly bulletin and I live in Glengormley which is a mixed area

I am quite sure i dont, i have a fella that arrives plastered every Thursday selling An Phoblacht if that counts.......

if he calls at your house you must buy it.

My wife buys it the odd time as she "feels sorry" for him, it goes straight to the bin but he puts it through the letterbox regardless of anyone being in or not so the money aspect obviously isnt important. A cosmetic exercise?

you should grow a pair and tell him to f##k off

Sure i will maybe get a tough guy like you up to do it for me.......

[glens abu]

Let's play this out.

Lets say there are 10,000 nationalists on the waiting list and 2000 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 8% and the unionist waiting list by 10%.

Presumably EG and the intellectual heavyweight known as Newt would have them allocated 50-50 which would result in 1000 each or satisfy 10% of nationalist need and 100% of unionist need.

But the article said that any housing would still be allocated on the basis of the waiting list. Therefore those with the highest points are allocated the housing, regardless of their religion. It's not about designing an appropriate split.

That may well mean that 95% of a North Belfast scheme would still be Catholic. The 'shared future' agenda just means that a new development wouldn't be planned as exclusively Catholic or Protestant.

yeah but the problem is at the old Girdwood site in north Belfast that is what is required and wanted by the SDLP and the Shinners but Unionists will not agree as the are worried about Mr.Dodds seat in North Belfast,easy to do it in Lisburn were there is not a housing crisis