I can't go back to Salford now, the police have got me marked
From the Guardian, a hard tale of life round Jamie's way. This one really ought to be set in schools as a test of "advanced reading between the lines", as it seems pretty clear to me that there is also a tale here of heroically daft behaviour (which would run - man tries to effectively join a teenagers' gang, gets new girlfriend and wants to chuck all of local mates, constantly blames police for problems while making it impossible for them to help him, out of a totally misplaced belief in Manc omerta - I mean, at one point "Kenny" is " youngest son of the most feared family in the area" and untouchable, but nine paragraphs later he's suddenly found an ASBO in his breakfast cereal and is forced to obey it. Who sorted out that then?).[1] But blaming the victim aside, Jesus Christ, what a bloody story. I think he probably made money on the house though[2].
This is another dispatch from the "white working class"[tm] wars, by the way, and I frankly don't see how the John Cruddas council house scheme (which I reiterate would involve getting rid of the right to buy, something that the working class would not necessarily thank you for) would help. I'm particularly interested in the anti-Polish racism angle - this was the cornerstone of the BNP's surge in Wrexham in the 2006 elections, although it appears from the results that they are nowhere electorally in Salford (only running a candidate in one ward, which AFAICT wasn't this one). I would not necessarily read too much specifically racist content into the nativist rant that the attacker comes out with toward the end of the story - it looks just like a normal bully's speech to me - but on the other hand, the wild insularity of these little urban islands certainly is the sort of thing that racism is made of (the author notes that he had spent "the majority of his adult life in Moss Side and Hulme", but this might just mean "was a student" - unless there are two Ed Joneses in Lancashire journalism, he's the ex-bass player for Tansads and actually from Wigan, which might as well be Vancouver as far as passing for a native was concerned). (Update: there must be two of them - the biographical details for the Tansads guy just don't fit).
But I don't think that the problem here is really anti-East European racism - it's the more general category of bullyism. If Ed Jones and his Polish and Slovakian friends hadn't moved into that house and fallen out with the local bullies [3], then the bullies would have been picking on someone who'd lived in Salford all their life, because that's what bullies do. What to do about that is the ten ton gorilla of all social policy questions, because it absolutely goes to the heart of a whole load of issues which we all care about. If there are areas like this, then they are going to be not unlike the Salford that Ed Jones describes, because there is basically the choice is between economic development (which changes the character of the area and its community), and continued state subsidy through the benefit system (which has the corrosive effects described). I would say that it's the communities that need to be sacrificed, but I would guess that the Salfordians would disagree, and they get a vote too.
My personal view is that the Cruddas council house plan - and any other plan which subsidises the maintenance of these communities by "allowing children to live near their parents" - is exactly the worst of both worlds. It seems to me to be subsidising the existing social structures without making any real provision for economic development[4]. I think that's going to create communities that are inescapably and intractably tangled up with state involvement - both in terms of the economic subsidy and the implicit dependence on the broadly-defined law enforcement community (including social services, the council ASBO teams etc) to shore up the very social structures that we're trying to maintain. At some point I really must write the Great Welsh Holiday Cottages Post, because that's my mental model of regional development, but I really do believe that the Welsh nationalists wasted at least ten years in trying to preserve a past tense agrarian society, before basically getting with the program and seeing that there really is no substitute for economic development.
Update: Of course, these urban and suburban islands have a particularly important place in the electoral geography of the UK as they are historically the solidest of solid Labour, and this is a big problem. I've written in the past about how the "local politics" that this encourages in MPs like Hazel Blears is probably counterproductive to national politics and suspect that this might be a real problem for Labour, in that the future for these areas lies in one of two directions - either they go down the Barking & Dagenham route with increasing far-right nationalist presence, or the way of the Welsh Valleys, which are much, much less solidly Labour than they used to be.
By the way, assuming that the BBC plan to relocate 1,500 jobs to the mediacity:uk[5] complex means that there is likely to be a thin four thousand middle class Southerners heading for this district, clutching the sale proceeds of a flat in Shepherd's Bush. Jeepers Creepers. Enter the dragon, exit Johnny Clark.
[1] Also there's a little question mark in my mind about the author's admission of having "done two years in jail", which is actually quite difficult to achieve because four year custodial sentences (edit; I've just realised that "two years" doesn't necessarily mean "24 consecutive months" and "in jail" might include "on remand", so this might not be right, see comments) are not handed out for scrumping apples, or indeed much else other than aggravated mugging or possession of Class A Drugs with intent to supply. Whatever the author did, it's clearly in the past because at the end of the day he did get the mortgage on the house but I can't help thinking that a lot of the problem here comes from not having lost the habits picked up when he was doing whatever got him the jail sentence.
[2] Assuming it's in Broughton, which is where Hazel Blears did an ASBO walkabout in 2007, then four-bedroom terraced houses are going for about £120k - there is one up for auction with a guide price of £90k at the moment, and if you buy it, my advice is to get a big dog.
[3] Not all of the people in that story fit into this category, though, and I (making allowances that it is probably pretty fucking difficult to be objective about this sort of thing when you've been forced out of your bloody house) am not too keen on the way that some of them are referred to. "Michelle", in particular (she goes to raves and takes Es! Feel the desolation!), gets a writeup that really isn't far from what Julie Burchill is talking about in her articles on "cultural racism", plus the Eastern Europeans are given quite a chance to make sneery comparisons with "the culture of degradation around them".
[4] I realise I'm thinking about this as a development economics problem rather than a social policy one. Not sure about the implications of this.
[5] I don't know why, but jokey harrumphs about the use of typography in branding these developments are just beginning to seem a bit 2003 to me. Neville Brody (by which I mean "David Hillman", see comments) kicked off the whole phenomenon with TheGuardian in 1987 and it appears to me that post the iPod, it's here to stay.
Well possession with intent to supply can often be the equivalent of scrumping apples. All that means is that you are in possession of enough drugs to be considered a supplier, which is a pretty low bar (I think they've raised it - but since becoming respectable, I don't really keep track of such things). Certainly buying drugs for your mates at cost will put you over it (and I know people this has happened to).
ReplyDeleteI can't help thinking that a lot of the problem here comes from not having lost the habits picked up when he was doing whatever got him the jail sentence.
ReplyDeleteHow so?
It seems to me that his problem is that he was an outsider, who had made it pretty clear he wasn't a threat. Perfect target for local bullies. Not much he could do about the former. For the latter you either have to appear more dangerous than the kids/bullies (not an option), or seem sufficiently unpredictable/unstable (and violent/dangerous) such that its not worth the risk. While the latter is theoretically an option (given that you only have to do something dangerous, rather than pick a fight with the entire gang), its not something most middle class people are terribly good at (though some learn the skill in prison I guess).
That's true, but the average sentence reflects this; it's 20 months. If you look at that spreadsheet I linked, four years is quite a way out in the right hand tail of the distribution for Class A, so I think you'd have to be very unlucky to get it for the kind of bullshit "supply" offence you're talking about.
ReplyDeleteIt's just struck me that he might not have done the two years in one lump and it might include time spent on remand, so one can't necessarily go from "done two years" to "been sentenced to four" - it reads that way to me but it doesn't actually say it. I suppose I should modify the post accordingly.
It seems to me that his problem is that he was an outsider
ReplyDeleteI don't really agree with this - there was a previous draft of this post that I scrapped because it really did shade into blaming the victim, but I really don't think the author is being 100% straight with us here.
Viz, the idea that the community of kids on his front doorstep were "inherited from when the house was empty for 18 months". I just don't buy this - the house was empty and with no bars, gates or alarm, and yet these local toughs decided to hang around on the doorstep in the pissing Mancunian rain rather than break in? I think that they started hanging out there when he made it clear that they were welcome. (As I say in the post, it looks to me as he was effectively trying to join their gang).
As I say, I think the most likely version of things in this Lancashire Rashomon is that he was, in fact, getting on just fine with all the locals and quite possibly enjoying doing so, but then he got a new girlfriend who didn't like them, and things got nasty. Which is not to excuse anyone's behaviour - everyone has the right to get a new girlfriend and dump their old mates without getting beaten up - but there's actually quite a lot about this story that has that sort of "well if everything happened exactly as you say it did, then truly you were totally in the right" air to it.
I also think that his way of behaving with respect to the police was idiotic. If you've called the police, your attacker has seen you call the police, the police arrive, your attacker is there and the police ask you "was it him?", then how the hell can it make sense to say "no"?
God knows how I'd cope with Ed Jones's situation - even worse, probably - but he does come across as not just innocent but wilfully innocent. (I'm reminded of Robert Snell in the Archers on his Marie-Antoinette building job, complaining virtuously about how it's not fair for him to make the tea all the time...)
ReplyDeleteWhat's with the stuff about not wanting to risk grassing? (Not wanting to grass, fair enough, but that's not how he presents it.) The ASBO system was designed to obviate the need to point a finger at the defendant in court, or even prove to the court that the defendant had done anything; if he couldn't work it, he can't have been trying.
The other alternative would have been to get in with the guy in the balaclava and his mates, and get them to sort the kids out. If he'd kept his eyes and ears open that would probably have been easier than trying to get down with the kids, as well as more productive. (I read a paper a while back about access to justice in Salford; the researcher was quite surprised to find that respondents were actually quite happy not having any access to justice in the formal sense, since they had access to, um, other forms of dispute resolution.)
But I have to say, that first paragraph with its "picturesque glimpses of Manchester" marked his card for me. Manchester's proud of many things, but being picturesque isn't one of them. (And Salford local pride doesn't exactly centre on how handy it is for Manchester.)
re [5], it was David Hillman of Pentagram who put the Guardian masthead into italic Garamond + Helvetica Bold (in 1988?).
ReplyDeleteI would think that the best way to approach this logoization of the culture is:
either to ignore it (no one refers to "theguardian" though that is what the masthead now says);
or else parrot it back to them, as you do here; before long the logo/brand-mark will have changed again anyway.
rk
On the right to buy, is there any reason why it couldn't be semi-abolished on the basis of "not applying to anything built after 2007"?
ReplyDeleteI mean that's basically what they do with pension schemes and the financial commentators always think it's a good idea.
I'm sort of torn.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, there's a lot that's hinky about the main character in this story. He's also a property flipper, which is a breed I'm not fond of.
On the other, in another part of the country, where I live, there were a number of these kinds of attacks on East European immigrants, similar to the one described. Being burnt out of your home (lucky they were out at work) is just not right, y'know?
Of course, the problem has dissipated now, because there are so many East European immigrants that you'd be a daft BNP idiot to try to pick on them now...
However, the largely useless response of the police in protecting those immigrants was pretty depressing.
Further, the problem I have with your "economic development/gentrification" remedy is that while Salford is near Manchester city centre and ripe for development, my extended family live in an area that is way down the "feasible development" list. If you like, this is where the families displaced from Salford (or local equivalents) will end up.
I'd love to see some development ideas that don't hinge on being in a tourist/commuter friendly location in the first place.
And yes, I know, if you knew the answer, you wouldn't be blogging it here. But still, I think my question is the implication of you thinking like a development economist...
No administrative difficulty in doing this, but it wouldn't give the people who want it what they want; all manner of these sorts of schemes got floated in Wales and ended up being shot down.
ReplyDeleteIs there anything particularly chavvy about going to raves and taking Es? Personally I've never done either, but I wouldn't have thought it pointed in any given social direction.
ReplyDeletethere really is no substitute for economic development
Maybe not, but nor is there any substitute for being able to afford somewhere secure to live. It's not the property ladder that's important, it's knowing that you're not going to be on the move involuntarily this time next week. I am sure the psychological (and hence political) importance of this is underestimated by homeowners.
It's also important not to have to travel for hours between home and work: exhaustion isn't good for you.
metatone: if I did know the answer, I promise I would be writing about it here. I'm not sure that families do get "displaced" as a result of gentrification in the sense that you mention though; the usual dynamic is that the kids get priced out of the market and go and live somewhere else as they grow up[1], while the auld folks sit around in a massively appreciating asset until retirement, then sell it (after which point they aren't a social problem because they're rich). It's not like the big redevelopment and slum clearances of the 1960s and 70s where you really did get places like Kirkby suddenly aquiring a new population.
ReplyDelete[1] If I were in argumentative mood (and had done a *lot* more work on the subject), I might argue the stronger case that there's an actual benefit to breaking up these close-knit communities. I am not a big fan of "cultures of desolation" because it does veer into economic racism, but the campanilismo of some of these urban islands really does hold people back.
Is there anything particularly chavvy about going to raves and taking Es?
ReplyDeleteIt's not exactly chavism Jones makes it signify - more the stage of having had the chance to mend one's yobbish ways through a healthily robust encounter with a more civilised middle-class person, having blown it and now being inexorably doomed to a life of brutish misery as a result. And no, I don't think it does usually indicate that, or anything much else other than being more likely to be youngish than oldish.
As for 'raves', I saw a comment somewhere quite recently (I wish I could remember where) from an actual under-20-year-old, saying that anyone who talked about young people going to 'raves' was just showing how out of touch they are. (Unfortunately [s]he didn't follow through by telling us old farts what young people do go to. Any ideas?)
the stage of having had the chance
ReplyDeleteThe state, that should be.
the campanilismo of some of these urban islands really does hold people back
ReplyDeleteDoes it though? How does it do so? I suspect the ill-effects of close-knit communities may be felt by those who come into them from outside rather than by the inhabitants.
It's not quite the same thing, but as it happens I live in a fairly small and obscure Spanish town in which, to an Englishman, a startling number of people who live here, come from here. (Often this is even stated in peoples' names - the surname is the name of a local village.) Students, instead of going as far away from the family home as possible, study here or in the nearest city and then, assuming they even left, come home. Most people, foreigners apart, have lots of family nearby.
Now to me, this seems a litle claustrophobic, and as an outsider myself it has ill-effects that the locals don't really appreciate. (For instance, everything, from hospital operations to house repairs chess club fixtures, is arranged at the last minute, because it's assumed that everybody is always in the area and can come at a moment's notice, which is fine unless it isn't true.) But it and of itself it's not such a bad thing, I think. And if it doesn't make the kids go and move to the big city when they're eighteen then you know, good. The big city is still there if they want to to be.
I kind of agree with you but I mean, man, really - when I think of the guys I was at school with who are still drinking in the same pub that we all went to 20 years ago, it just makes me want to weep (also, often bad news for anyone born gay). I think there are real economic effects too - everyone's correctly suspicious of the "acting white" explanation for lower educational achievements in black communities, but it's not a 100% fictitious phenomenon (also cf: sportsmen like Ricky Hatton or Jonathan Woodhouse).
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, as I said in the post, it's high-handed neoclassicism of the worst order to just dismiss the fact that as you say, these communities do provide something valuable to the people who live in them. I'm not at all sure how to square the circle and suspect that it might not be possible ("Not all economic problems have solutions" - LBS proverb).
I suspect I'm getting a bit Monty Python now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9x98Imr6ao
I think the point is that most of these places ceased to be 'communities' in any sense of the word years ago. People shop outside these areas, work (if they do) outside these areas, go to school outside these areas, socialise outside these areas. This is usually because the schools have closed and have been replaced by 'factory schools', aka City Academies etc, decent shops have closed, jobs were lost long ago, lots of pubs have shut and any other facilities have been centralised. Anybody who has been to areas of Salford could really despair at the psychological and physical desolation of the place. These areas need drastic action.
ReplyDeleteWould be interesting to know where he's writing about. I lived in Higher Broughton for 2 years and it was largely OK, although we did have bars on the windows, steel reinforced doors and a bollard in the drive. I suspect the proximity to Manchester means its around Lower Broughton way, which was a complete urban warzone.
ReplyDeleteAs you say these areas almost certainly provide something valuable for the people living there - although this can be hard to appreciate for an outsider. But I think it's also the case that these areas and their communities can serve to reinforce the shit behaviour patterns that so blight them.
The rationale for breaking up such areas would be that the benefits of this nebulous community spirit are outweighed by the very tangible social impacts of crime and constant low level thuggery.
The government's Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder programme is a knock down and start again programme for some of the countries most eggergiously shit areas i.e. Salford, Burnley, Stoke etc. You'd think this would be a welcome development, but the community protest in some areas has been deafening.
As I say in the post, it looks to me as he was effectively trying to join their gang
ReplyDeleteHmm, reading it properly without a baby trying to eat the paper, it quite clearly reads that way. Ignore the previous comment, I obviously would fail the advanced reading test.
Justin: Is there anything particularly chavvy about going to raves and taking Es? Personally I've never done either, but I wouldn't have thought it pointed in any given social direction.
Well if he's the failed Britpopper, then he probably despised "rave" (which would all forms of dance music) as being not proper music (guitars - proper songs), degenerate, etc. Anyways, says more about him than her.
Though bits of post-Rave are pretty chavvish, and always were.
Phil: As for 'raves', I saw a comment somewhere quite recently (I wish I could remember where) from an actual under-20-year-old, saying that anyone who talked about young people going to 'raves' was just showing how out of touch they are. (Unfortunately [s]he didn't follow through by telling us old farts what young people do go to. Any ideas?)
The students on campus (Sussex) go clubbing, but then they're a pretty posh bunch, so I wouldn't rely on them to get it right either. It was semi-interchangeable when I were lad, but that was a good while back now.
You'd think this would be a welcome development, but the community protest in some areas has been deafening.
Change is threatening. Just the way we're wired. Essentially easier to focus on concrete things that you'll lose, than the imaginary things you might gain. Probably a useful trait in the steppes, but pretty tricky if you're trying to manage democratic change...
Is there anything particularly chavvy about going to raves and taking Es?
ReplyDeleteOne of the poshest girls in my sixth form went to the Hacienda every month. She dropped out before taking her A-levels and went to Meribel to be a ski instructor.
The rationale for breaking up such areas would be that the benefits of this nebulous community spirit are outweighed by the very tangible social impacts of crime and constant low level thuggery.
For council estates, of which I'm a product, my mother's line holds true: the 'scruffy people' drive out the rest, because of who comes in to replace the ones who move out. Breaking up those communities would be a benefit, because there's a point at which incremental decline can't be arrested by incremental improvement, but psychologically, when you're together in the shit, it's Dunkirk spirit.
On sense of place, there's another factor, which is a weird nostalgia at work from outside. The terraces where my dad was brought up, among second-generation Irish and Italian immigrants, are now home to a similar proportion of second-generation Asian immigrants, and will be home to second-generation Eastern European, and sub-Saharan African immigrants. It creates some hard-to-rationalise attitudes towards suburban dispersal and the 'value' of town centres.
As I say in the post, it looks to me as he was effectively trying to join their gang
ReplyDeleteAt very least, he acted in a way that made them think so, and judge him by their own rules and regs.
And Jonathan Woodgate's a strange case, because the places he used to hang out in town, godknows if he does now, were the weekend-night pubs dotted around the town-centre terraces. He's from the nice leafy suburbs. Being able to come back from Leeds with shitloads of money, though, and still go to the same pubs with the same dodgy hangers-on, was just a recipe for trouble.
(And I'll chuckthis new happy incident onto the list of what happens when you're still hanging out with your mates in your home town, just getting more money a week than they get a year.)
I don't know why, because I don't care about football really, but there was something about Jonathan Woodgate that I found strangely touching (even when he was on trial for a really quite nasty racially aggravated assault). He was clearly an exceptionally talented sportsman, but somehow, although he had the strength of character to train and compete at the highest level, he just couldn't, for the longest time, make the break with his childhood.
ReplyDeleteThe government's Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder programme is a knock down and start again programme for some of the countries most egregiously shit areas i.e. Salford, Burnley, Stoke etc. You'd think this would be a welcome development, but the community protest in some areas has been deafening.
ReplyDeleteYes and for some damned good reasons as well.
In general, it's really very iffy and really quite Thatcherite to decide that other peoples' communities need breaking up. It's not what the people themselves tend to want, either. (Note: I was brought up in Stevenage and lived for some years on Blackbird Leys in Oxford, which at one time was apparently the largest council estate in Europe, and therefore know whereof I speak.)
It's not doing the people concerned a favour, it's telling them "screw you". It is unlikely in most cases to liberate them from their circumstances and unlock their entrepreneuiral potential: what it is actually likely to do is to recreate the circumstances which existed before the large estates and new towns were built, to wit huge urban areas of private, slum-ridden rented housing, much more real no-go areas than the estates are supposed to be, with crime and evictions rife. And then we shall be forced to reach for policing solutions in place of economic ones.
Yes, a certain amount of rebuild would be a good idea: if that's not welcomed by many people, it may be less because they're stupid poor people who don't realise what's good for them, and more that the government programme doesn't quite fit the description attached to it. We might also ask whether there are ways to economically regenerate neglected areas, since in practice there is nothing that discourages crime quite so effectively as a job and a wallet full of wages. But frankly I think I'd rather people neglected council estates entirely rather than decide that what the people in them need is dispersal and a kick up the arse.
A note on Pathfinder: in principle it's a very good thing, and in practice it may turn out to be that way in some areas. The basic idea of removing old, terminally knackered housing and replacing it with new, functioning and affordable accomodation is a good one.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the particular problem is that in some areas, people have formed the impression that much of the housing due to be demolished is, in fact, structurally sound and that not the housing destined to replace is not necessarily either affordable or sufficient in quantity. It may sometimes be that the requirements of the developers, rather than the needs of the populace, are what is driving the scheme.
There's a much wider point here about how little attention is paid to the views, circumstances and problems of people in the UK who do not live in owner-occupied accommodation. Really they are almost entirely ignored by the media and by political discussion, except when it comes to deciding that they are a problem that (for their own good) needs dealing with.
You would think, for instance, that among all the programmes about doing up your house in the country or seeking a pied-Ã -terre in Brittany, there might be some interest in real-life programmes about trying to contact the absentee landlord when the heating fails in mid-January. Or trying to get your deposit back off the crooks at the agency. I mean a fair few of the kids who work at the companies which produce these programmes must actually be in that situation.
Then there's the way in which new-housing guidelines are regularly flouted with the connivance of local authorities. Want to build lots of inner London apartments for single professionals, but your
scheme involves more than fourteen dwellings and hence requires an element of social housing? Never mind, just split it into three different applications and that'll be all right. This is a very common scam and yet hardly anybody knows about it. It's hard to believe that this is not because:
i) the people adversely affected are poorer people ;
ii) the poorer people are not the problem.
We might also ask whether there are ways to economically regenerate neglected areas
ReplyDeletethe trouble is that the answer to this is "basically not without bringing in a lot of people from the outside, and certainly not without driving property prices up" - ie, not without changing the character of the area.
EJH: I agree that very often community complaints are justified. In Stoke they were looking to knock down perfectly good back to back terraces because these were "no longer what people wanted", apparently.
ReplyDeleteAs you say, the role of developers in these programmes is dubious and in my limited experience the people running HMR schemes are being led round by the nose by developers.
Also, in many HMR areas, the house price boom put pay to the notion that markets were failing, but that hasn't stopped schemes from pressing ahead.
The main failing of the HMR programme is that it is completely disconnected from any efforts to regnerate the economies of deprived areas. The Ray Mallon "build it and they'll come" approach to regeneration is a nice idea, but nice housing in a shit area with no jobs will very quickly become shit housing.
I went to school in Stevenage - St Mick's and then John Henry Newman, by the way.
Well one of the problems with redevelopment schemes is that they tend to be carried out in a top down fashion (as does most development work, if you want to bring this back to development economics). This has a number of unfortunate outcomes:
ReplyDelete1) The people carrying out the work don't really know much about the people they are supposedly working on behalf of, and so design solutions based upon their own prejudices/assumptions/beliefs (which are wrong, 99% of the time).
2) Being undemocratic, they are far more likely to be captured by special interests (e.g. developers - basically anyone with money and influence).
3) The people for whom the work is supposedly being carried out, don't really understand the reasons for what is being done, resent change (as I said above - that's how we're wired) and also (quite reasonably) resent having no control over a process which will have a considerable affect on their lives.
the trouble is that the answer to this is "basically not without bringing in a lot of people from the outside, and certainly not without driving property prices up" - ie, not without changing the character of the area.
Well yeah, but in a lot of areas this is pretty pointless. If all you're doing is driving out the locals (an awful lot of whom will be renters) and replacing them with salaried outsiders, then all you're doing is moving the problem along. I'm pretty suspicious of this "development" assumption that the problem is with the area rather than the individuals. There's some truth to it in that lots of these areas might as well be the moon for all the facilities they have (no shops and sometimes not even a pub), but there are plenty of deprived areas in London where locals have access to jobs in the areas surrounding them which will be no different to those which follow gentrification. I'm sure the same is true elsewhere.
In international development I am a big fan of the JK Galbraith view from "The Nature of Mass Poverty", that the only proven workable model is the emigration/remittance one. I am v.v.v.v. suspicious of taking ideas from developed world economics to development problems and therefore constitutionally v.v.v.v. suspicious of the reverse, but I can't help noticing that the effect of the change in policy in North Wales (to orient development toward tourism and away from agriculture and to accept the consequences of that for local property prices) has been to bring in something not unlike the emigration/remmittance model for young Welsh, and I think it's been a success.
ReplyDeleteIn a lot of these cases it *is* the area that's the problem - or specifically, it's the Woodgate syndrome, the social structures of the area making it much more costly for people living there to invest in human capital. I am not 100% convinced that gentrification does just move the problem along.
On the other hand, it has to be recognised that the willy-nilly destruction of communities is not itself a risk-free policy and that I have rather the zeal of a convert when it comes to urban rootlessness. Since Polanyi didn't really get very far with this antinomy I am pessimistic about the prospects for me doing so either.
the trouble is that the answer to this is "basically not without bringing in a lot of people from the outside, and certainly not without driving property prices up" - ie, not without changing the character of the area.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure this is true and the point has been made in debates I've been involved in regarding gentrification in Brixton, where I lived for a couple of years: if there's regeneration then prices will go up anyway, you can't avoid it. But I think the locals would (and do) respond that that's OK, they'll take their chances in that situation. And if they have some sort of housing security, they'll benefit in a number of ways. But a process which involves giving the locals the push in order to regenerate the area - well, they can't really be expected to say "ta very much". And the trouble is, you read these newspaper articles about gentrified areas and they never seem to ask, or care, where the previous inhabitants went or what they think.
Malcom - good God. Same as me, though I left a few years before the name (and status) change. You know Lewis Hamilton went there too? Our first famous old boy, as far as I know.
I have rather the zeal of a convert when it comes to urban rootlessness.
ReplyDeleteYeah possibly but that's OK. Me, I may well have an exaggerated fondness for stable communities and secure housing based partly on the fact that I've never really been able to obtain this for myself. But I do think there's a large element in which people who are secure themselves find themselves recommending insecurity for people poorer (and younger) than themselves, and I think that's potentially problematic ethically. This is compunded by the likelihood that those who benefit from the process are not in general those who are put out by it.
the only proven workable model is the emigration/remittance one
ReplyDeleteUnpack your shorthand, sirrah. Or at least provide a URL. I think I know what you're saying, but it would be nice to be sure. (Application to the Italian case would be particularly interesting, to me at least.)
some sort of housing security
ReplyDeleteI've probably told this story here before, but anyway. When they redeveloped Hulme for the second time, I went to one of the developers' PR meetings. Perhaps because the estate had been council housing, the developers were obliged to consult the (relatively few) remaining tenants in the estate about what was going to go up and who was going to live there. They seemed genuinely surprised to find that the responses were (a) houses with a front door and a bit of garden out the back and (b) we will, ta very much; they'd been expecting to fit a lot more units into the site and have a lot more spare capacity. Presumably the idea was that the residents would stay where they'd been parked while development was going on, which probably meant Wythenshawe.
To combine cian's and ejh's points, people don't like change; they particularly don't like change being forced on them; and, a lot of the time, why should they?
Reasonably good review of Galbraith's "Nature of Mass Poverty". The basic idea is that
ReplyDeletea) poverty is an equilibrium
b) "accomodation" (ie, getting better at living in the poverty equilibrium) is the rational reaction to being born into a poverty-equilibrium society
c) however, accomodation entrenches the poverty equilibrium and means that most conventional development approaches are doomed to fail.
d) therefore (elitism alert) the target of development policy ought to be the "non-accomodated minority" who don't accept the state they're in
and
e) in the modern world, the rational action of a non-accomodated individual in a poverty society is emigration
f) therefore, the best development policy is a generous immigration policy.
g) and therefore, through some not very well thought out channel, this will help raise standards back in the poverty society.
I think it's actually a very good book, with a few big flaws (those noted plus a) a few hints of population nutterism (although actually the discussion of the sensible and silly varieties of Malthusianism is one of the best things in the book) and b) the discussion of "non-accomodated individuals" breaks off for a couple of pages of furious wanking about the Bloody Scots Irish again, this time in Canada)).
When you (or Galbraith) say "emigration, do you actually mean that? I just ask because I'd have thought that remittances were mostly sent by people who don't consider their move to be a permanent one.
ReplyDelete(Of course, as I may have observed above, the option of moving elsewhere for employment exists already for people who have grown up on council estates and in small isolated towns. It's pretty much as common in Lincolnshire or Norfolk as it was in Ireland until recently: once school's over then off you go to London.)
"People don't like change; they particularly don't like change being forced on them; and, a lot of the time, why should they?"
ReplyDeletePeople also often resent living in areas of extreme deprivation and poverty. But they very often lack the human or financial capital to bring about change themselves, so what other sort of change is there, apart from top down change?
EJH: Lewis Hamilton was expelled from JHN for alledgedly stamping on a kid's head in the school toilets. Huge furoe which was swept under the carpet until only very recently.
http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article.html?in_article_id=73312&in_page_id=58
Hmmm. Also interested wrt emigration; does Galbraith mean yer actual depopulation or something less final and more benign?
ReplyDeleteWhat happened in Italy, incidentally, is that the poverty and (more or less deliberate) under-development of the South led to massive emigration and internal migration. The emigrants became Gastarbeiter, sent money home and, I would guess, mostly went home again; the migrants from South to North became factory workers, lived in slums and did their bit for the economic miracle.
This is one reason why Fini's Alleanza Nazionale has been relatively moderate on the racism front. A few years ago Bossi (Northern League) came out with some Powellism about how the houses are going to "the first bingo-bongo who turns up". Fini told him to shut up and said, "Until twenty years ago we were the bingo-bongoes" - 'we' meaning Southerners. (Bossi hates them as well, but when you're a demagogic racist loon you take your allies where you can find them.)
The emigrants became Gastarbeiter, sent money home and, I would guess, mostly went home again;
ReplyDeleteI think this is the implicit model, though it's not really all that clear in the book IIRC (and it's a while since I read it)
Hmm, judging by your summary of the Galbraith book, its a load of theorising from on high and his conclusions are pretty dubious. Most development projects in the third world fail because they aren't addressing the actual problems, and are designed by arrogant first world "professionals" who neither understand the society they are working in, or the problems they are supposedly addressing. Add to that basic methodological flaws in the ways that most of these projects are initiated and its not terribly surprising. Its like the failure of government IT projects - why look any further, when the evidence of incompetence is so overwhelming.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure there's some truth to what he's saying (though is there any benefit in wrapping up pretty banal observations in economicese), but its not a given that accommodation will entrench poverty. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't - I don't think you can really generalise like that. And he also seems to ignore the fact that in both the first and third worlds, many of these "poverty-equilibrium socities" are in part (often significantly) a function of government policies (either deliberate, inadvertant or simply incompetent). If your teachers constantly tell you that you're a failure and no good - well you'll tend to prove them right. If you live in an area which is overpoliced, and where the legal system encourages plea-bargaining you'll end up with a criminal record, with all the negative social effects (much of the poor urban black population in the US). And these kinds of factors often occur in response to perceived failures in a particular area, so reinforce existing problems and exacerbate them.
Now granted the problem in some areas is that they are in the wrong place (North Wales). But equally many deprived areas in the UK are in extremely wealthy areas. You can't explain much of London, or Manchester, that way.
hmmm good points - I should say in JKG's defence that the book is entirely about dollar-a-day rural poverty, and the attempt to extend it to the developed world is more or less 100% Digest, and as I say, I'm not sure it works.
ReplyDeleteJust on Pathfinder...
ReplyDeleteDon't confuse "community" with simply "different families in the same types of house living on top of one another". A lot (not all) of these places stopped being communities a few months after the pit closed and the factory shuts its gate for good.
Don't assume that the only people who should have a say in what happens and how it happens are the people living on the estates concerned (although they should probably have the biggest say). A lot (not all) of these places have what we can loosely describe as 'problems' that are not confined within the estate boundary.
Don't be surprised if the vociferous leaders of the residents action group opposing the regeneration scheme live in the safest corner of the target district, have the fewest broken windows and the least amount of damp climbing the walls. Community spirit doesn't put a roof over your head. Most residents want sanitary, safe housing first, a sense of history and other intangibles second. You're unlikely to see marches and action days supporting anything the authorities are proposing, even when a huge majority is in favour.
I'm trying to find a link to a regenration project in Liverpool in which it was agreed to retain the housing facade in one or two streets and develop behind the frontage, thus retaining the overall look and feel of the area. I have a feeling it was in L19. So these compromises are possible, at least sometimes.
Excellent point from ejh about the lack of media attention given to what is an almost entirely ignored demographic....unless, as he says, there is an opportunity to castigate them.
Well rural dollar-a-day rural poverty is a specical case, and actually one where the economics approach has been reasonably destructive in many places. Not to romanticise rural poverty, or indeed farming, but if you are living on a dollar a day, but have food security, basic shelter, firewood, etc through farming of some kind, you're doing better than many. If on the other hand you have five dollars a day, but have to buy heat, shelter, food, clothing, etc with that money, you can easily be doing worse (and be just as insecure, or more so). Many developmental economists missed that, and indeed continue to do so in some cases.
ReplyDeleteThere's kind of an analogy with communities. One thing which has been lost with general dispersal of families, is various support networks for things like babysitting, DIY, etc (be it from family, or friends) - or indeed just general favours. These are things that are either replaced (costing money), or lead to other problems (kids running wild - not necessarily the parents fault if they're doing 12 hour days). So there is a cost with dispersal of communities, which can lead to other social costs.
"Don't confuse "community" with simply "different families in the same types of house living on top of one another"."
ReplyDeleteBy definition that's a type of community.
"A lot (not all) of these places stopped being communities a few months after the pit closed and the factory shuts its gate for good."
Unless the area was depopulated, this seems unlikely. And no I'm not being pedantic - you can't just create your own definitions of such a basic term, just because a community doesn't have the correct "social interactons" in your opinion. Presumably you mean they lost "community spirit" then, whatever that might be.
"Don't assume that the only people who should have a say in what happens and how it happens are the people living on the estates concerned (although they should probably have the biggest say). A lot (not all) of these places have what we can loosely describe as 'problems' that are not confined within the estate boundary."
And what kind of say should they have? Over what? Its hard to agree, or disagree, with such a vague statement (even if I accept your assumptions about problems being confined, which I largely reject).
"Don't be surprised if the vociferous leaders of the residents action group opposing the regeneration scheme live in the safest corner of the target district, have the fewest broken windows and the least amount of damp climbing the walls."
Indeed. Any data for this? Its not impossible, but it also sounds identical to what various Labour politicians have been saying about opposition to many of their plans. Or indeed the standard response to any opposition to development plans the world over. Its amazing how politicians have a private psychic link to the silent, oppressed, majority.
"Community spirit doesn't put a roof over your head."
But I thought you'd stated this communities didn't have that above. Is a roof going to prevent crime? Is crime caused by damp?
"Most residents want sanitary, safe housing first, a sense of history and other intangibles second."
1) This is completely ungrounded. Where's your data?
2) Safe housing is more dependant upon the local community, as it is the buildings. Now unless you can show that moving these people into new homes is going to improve these communities in some way, you don't have much of an argument.
3) Incidentally, you've just made a similar argument to one made by Amnesty International. Food security first, political freedom (an intangible) second. Which is sweetly ironic.
"You're unlikely to see marches and action days supporting anything the authorities are proposing, even when a huge majority is in favour."
Which shouldn't really matter if the scheme is popular - a simple vote should suffice. Have any of the authorities tried this?
"I'm trying to find a link to a regenration project in Liverpool in which it was agreed to retain the housing facade in one or two streets and develop behind the frontage, thus retaining the overall look and feel of the area. I have a feeling it was in L19. So these compromises are possible, at least sometimes."
Well only if the look of the area is what people were complaining about. That seems like a pretty superficial response, to what was probably a larger and more significant complaint.
You also seem to be assuming that the complaints are purely conservative, which isn't always the case. Often the complaints are over the nature of the changes proposed, rather than change per se (I don't think they were consulted very seriously about these changes).
Well rural dollar-a-day rural poverty is a specical case, and actually one where the economics approach has been reasonably destructive in many places.
ReplyDeleteStarting(?) with Ireland. According to that august source This Thing I Read Somewhere, what particularly outraged British economists (a new breed at the time) wasn't the poverty of Irish peasants but by how easy they had it: as long as you've raised a pig and dug half a ton of potatoes before the frosts set in, you can basically spend the next three months playing diddle-eye music around the fire. Which is of course Wrong.
Well, I think the poverty and idleness might have been combined: if I remember my Prebble (and distressingly, my copy of Glencoe appears to have gone walkies, though of course it's The Highland Clearances we really need here) English - and for that matter, Lowland Scots - gentlemen used to go up to the Highlands and note that the blokes used to sit around all day not doing any work - and didn't have anything to show for it.
ReplyDeleteNaturally they were very keen indeed to liberate them from their sloth and penury, which they proceeded to do by driving them out of their settled communities and inducing them into emigration...
If true, that reminds me of the attitude taken by the Economist and their ilk to the French and Germans. How dare these people have a really good welfare state and 35-hour weeks? They must be forced to accept economic liberalisation and work another 400 hours a year like the Yanks do. For their own good. Whether they want it or not.
ReplyDeleteIt's the politics of envy.
PS - Am I qualified to engage in theis thread? I grew up in Hertford (Simon Balle, if you're interested) and thus lack all council estate cred.
Chris Williams
And no I'm not being pedantic
ReplyDeleteOh but you are. Within the context of this discussion and given some of the themes present, I think it's abundantly clear what is meant by my comment distinguishing between a genuine "community" on the one hand, and what is simply a concentration of human mass in urban dwellings on the other. You can disagree about the merits of terms like "community spirit" and how we define such things, but that's not the same as pretending there was any confusion about the point I was making.
And what kind of say should they have? Over what? Its hard to agree, or disagree, with such a vague statement
Well then, do neither. You're not forced to fisk every paragraph, are you?
(even if I accept your assumptions about problems being confined, which I largely reject).
You can't reject them as they apply to me, because I said the exect opposite. The problems are not confined. A 'problem' estate is rarely a 'problem' just for those living in it.
Indeed. Any data for this? Its not impossible, but it also sounds identical to what various Labour politicians have been saying about opposition to many of their plans. Or indeed the standard response to any opposition to development plans the world over. Its amazing how politicians have a private psychic link to the silent, oppressed, majority.
This is you aggresively agreeing, I think. It's a farily unconctroversial point that opposition to any regeneration project from locals will not always be representative of the majority. If you think such a scenario is possible, as you agree it is, then what's with the request for data?
But I thought you'd stated this communities didn't have that above. Is a roof going to prevent crime? Is crime caused by damp?
I have no idea what the first sentence means, but as for the question that follow, I'd say "yes", they are likely to be indirectly responsible, contributory factors, in the sense that for some people, having to live in shit feeds a perception that they and everything else around them is shit which in turn creates an environment in which crime is more likely.
1) This is completely ungrounded. Where's your data?
You want data to support a contention that "most residents want sanitary, safe housing first, a sense of history and other intangibles second"? Not the sort of demand I'd expect from someone who has slept in a bedroom with mould growing on the walls.
2) Safe housing is more dependant upon the local community, as it is the buildings. Now unless you can show that moving these people into new homes is going to improve these communities in some way, you don't have much of an argument.
You really are all over the place / assuming too much. To read your comment here, you would think my position is: 'safe houses = problems solved', or at least 'safe houses = improved community relations'. It is neither, albeit I wouldn't underestimate the impact a rebuild can have. My point is that if you and your family are living in a ramshackle house with rising damp, inadequate heating, plaster falling off the walls and a leaking roof, then this has a way of focusing the mind on what are the'real' priorities. You'd probably want to postpone a debate about whether new housing will lead to an improvement in community relations until you have somewhere fit for habitation in which to raise your kids.
3) Incidentally, you've just made a similar argument to one made by Amnesty International. Food security first, political freedom (an intangible) second. Which is sweetly ironic.
Again, evidence you *think* you know significantly more about what makes me tick than you really do.
Brownie, cut out the prolier than thou crap please, also please drop the assumption that everyone cares about *you*, rather than the subject. You're significantly worsening the quality of this discussion; I have seen the bore-fest that every single discussion of class gets into on your website and I don't want this one to go the same way, so I am afraid I'm going to be moderating you aggressively in this thread (you can do what you like on any of the others). Cian, I am trusting you to not take advantage of this to bait Brownie.
ReplyDeleteYou want data to support a contention that "most residents want sanitary, safe housing first, a sense of history and other intangibles second"? Not the sort of demand I'd expect from someone who has slept in a bedroom with mould growing on the walls.
I think this is entirely debatable both ways, and the evidence of every slum clearance project in history suggests that there are both conflicting desires at work, with no certainty over which one ends up being regarded as more important.
My only certain first-hand knowledge about protestors as an unrepresentative minority from the nicest part of the estate is to do with the Somers Town residents campaign, and in that one (possibly unusual case), it is definitely a smear.
It's not terribly unusual for those who are most active in a campaign to be not entirely representative of everybody else: they're likely to be the ones who feel most strongly about the issue.
ReplyDeleteHow "unrepresentative" that makes them is a matter for discussion and as a rule "less unrepresentative than Polly Toynbee" is likely to be a reasonable guideline.
dd,
ReplyDeleteI'm a little unsure how I'm supposed to interpret quips such as the one Cian made about Amnesty International other than it being about me and not my argument, but I'll bear what you say in mind.
I have seen the bore-fest that every single discussion of class gets into on your website and I don't want this one to go the same way
I don't know what you're talking about. I've not mentioned "class". But again, I'll heed your warning and continue to not mention it.
I think this is entirely debatable both ways, and the evidence of every slum clearance project in history suggests that there are both conflicting desires at work, with no certainty over which one ends up being regarded as more important.
Well of course, if for no other reason than not everybody is in the same boat. Even on the most sunk of sink estates, there are people living in houses worse than others, suffering more intimidation than others. The priorities at number 15 might well be different to those at number 33. I'd only say that whilst a shiny new house is no panacea, I believe any solution that doesn't include some element of rebuild will likely fail, because this probably means there will be some families still living in houses falling around their ears. It stands to reason that more police patrols, better street-lighting, youth projects, local job creation schemes, etc.. won't cut much ice with such families, meaning you'll quickly see a return to 'problems', assuming they ever go away at all.
My only certain first-hand knowledge about protestors as an unrepresentative minority from the nicest part of the estate is to do with the Somers Town residents campaign, and in that one (possibly unusual case), it is definitely a smear.
Well I promise not to make that charge against the Somers Town residents. You surely acknowledge, however, that there is a tendency amongst some to view local protests - whether they be against a new runway at Stansted, the proposed traveller site, the planned regeneration project - as if they reflected the views of the local community in toto? I see this happen time and again in local politics.
Chris, Justin, Phil: I'm not sure what Phil's reference is but I definitely recall Thomas Carlyle saying something very similar about the freed slaves in Jamaica (for some reason the phrase "NO! No pumpkin for you, Quashee!" sticks in my mind, quoted in Daniel Levy's "How the Dismal Science Got Its Name"). Carlyle, Ruskin et al rather catastrophically backed the wrong horse in the abolition debate, so I am not 100% sure whether these views are attributable to the Manchester School/Smithites or to their contemporary opponents.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble is that every single slum clearance has a whiff of Maoism to it; there are always these unrepresentative reactionary elements standing in the way of scientifically ordained progress, etc etc etc, who need to be pushed aside. But if you don't have slum clearances, you can't have any sort of urban planning, and you end up with somewhere like Sao Paolo (I idly wonder whether Mike Davis could be persuaded to write something about the parallels between baile funk and Madchester).
btw, the idea that Salford, Harpurhey, Hyde, etc, ceased to be communities when they lost their economic base makes no sense, particularly when one tries to think how this analysis might be carried over to the Welsh-speaking agricultural communities that are also on-topic here.
btw, the idea that Salford, Harpurhey, Hyde, etc, ceased to be communities when they lost their economic base makes no sense, particularly when one tries to think how this analysis might be carried over to the Welsh-speaking agricultural communities that are also on-topic here.
ReplyDeleteI've spent a bit of time working in Cheadle Hulme, but I don't think that qualifies me to comment on those places. Then again, I did say:
A lot (not all) of these places stopped being communities a few months after the pit closed and the factory shuts its gate for good.
I was thinking of the pit village where most of my maternal family live/lived - Hetton-le-Hole near Sunderland. And the Camp Hill estate in Nuneaton where I've got family. What you have in those places is fragmented community; the ties that bound broke long ago and whilst this was not due solely to loss of the pits and factories, these were catastrophic events for these communities, not least for the generations that followed.
If you're working a 6-day shift in the pit, you're spending more time with your fellow miners than you are with your family. For the children born into towns and villages where not only had the job for life gone west but there were no job prospects to speak of at all, what would have been a working day was replaced by hours spent hanging around the streets in 'your' gang, clique, whatever. The sense of shared or common destiny all but disappeared.
Of course this isn't true of ALL such places. That would be as silly as pretending it is true of none.
"I'm a little unsure how I'm supposed to interpret quips such as the one Cian made about Amnesty International other than it being about me"
ReplyDeleteYeah it was, and it was out of order. I'll respond to the rest later.
No worries, Cian. And reading back, I can see my follow-up to your comment does have a whiff of "prolier than thou", even though I didn't intend that. I promise to stop.
ReplyDeleteI do have to agree with Brownie about the erosion of 'community' with the loss of sources of work, economic base and public facilities. For how can 'community' survive if the shared social space is so small and opportunities for voluntary interaction so limited? I would have thought that Salford was a prime example, but there are others throughout the country, urban and rural, that exhibit these features.
ReplyDeleteBut if you don't have slum clearances, you can't have any sort of urban planning, and you end up with somewhere like Sao Paolo
ReplyDeleteYou do, and of course when Stevenage New Town was built, the other side of the coin was the postwar London slum clearances. But I would like there to be somewhere else to go, with "somewhere else" being something rather more specific than whatever the free market in housing may provide.
when I think of the guys I was at school with who are still drinking in the same pub that we all went to 20 years ago, it just makes me want to weep
ReplyDeleteOur unofficial (and heartfelt) motto at school: You've Got To Get Out Of The Valley.
I idly wonder whether Mike Davis could be persuaded to write something about the parallels between baile funk and Madchester
Well, both are a Damn Good Thing, for reasons well outlined in Nick's comment @ 1/08/2008 11:17:00 PM.
Further, don't think this is an urban issue specifically. My own council estate experience is zero (although I have done the bins in Holme Wood, Bradford), but I'm an economic migrant from the Yorkshire Dales.
"But if you don't have slum clearances, you can't have any sort of urban planning, and you end up with somewhere like Sao Paolo"
ReplyDeleteIf you do have slum planning and too much urban planning you end with the likes of Partington and Seacroft which are two of the most singularly depressing places on earth, lacking any of the vibrancy of urban inner cities, but with all the associated problems of crime, social decay etc. etc.
Gah, slum clearance, not planning.
ReplyDeleteI would have thought that places like Seacroft weren't planned enough. They do struggle from the fact that the local populace suffers from high rates of unemployment, poorly-paid work, very shoddily-built housing in some cases and inadequate facilities.
ReplyDeletePlus, where older inner city areas have the advantage in terms of vibrancy it is often because they have smaller shops, pubs, cafes, workplaces all in greater numbers. I do agree that this is an advantage of a lack of planning, but I don't see why planners can't take this kind of thing into account.
In areas like Seacroft you might have to walk a mile to the nearest pub, only to find that it's not a particularly pleasurable prospect once you've arrived.
It's safe-ish to say that problem estates and downtown areas aren't really communities, by any generous definition of the term.
ReplyDeleteThat's to say, when your scummier neighbours are robbing your shed or nicking your car, rather than heading a mile down the road to do it, then the basic tenets of estate life have gone. (And not to play prolier-than-thou, but those implicit rules do apply.)
And that comes about when bad drives out good, and the replacements are either worse, or just plain unlucky: i.e. the asylum seekers that the council decides to house next to smackheads, and riles up the entire neighbourhood on account of the new kitchen sink that Westminster has paid for.
I'm not thinking about pit village terraces or workplace estates, though there are some of those where I was brought up: my own experience is of the outer ring suburban estates, populated by those heading out from the terraces just as the Thatcher years kicked in across the northeast. Some did well, others became holes; some blame can be laid at urban planning -- one estate near me was known as the 'H-Block', not just because all the addresses began with 'H' -- and some to what happens with high unemployment in tight confines, but some of it seems capricious, down to the council waiting list.
I'm going to pull something right out of my arse now, and wonder what has happened in Belfast over the past few years. Because a lot of what got classed with 'The Troubles' could have easily been described as 'what happens when you live on huge, fuck-off estates with no job prospects if you can't get on the ferry, oh, plus guns and mob justice'.
We're now getting people either staying when they would have left, or moving back from the mainland. And a property boom, apparently, though one fuelled not so much by 'outsiders' as 'went away, came back' or 'moved from the suburbs to the gentrified city centre'.
Also fuelled by buy-to-let investors from ROI, apparently. I haven't seen any local complaints about housing affordability, despite the fact that it looks absolutely beserk - I suppose that this must reflect much larger availability of council housing, which it would be interesting to know more about as it might suggest that the Cruddas plan has more to it than I suspected.
ReplyDeleteGood point on council housing in Belfast, Dan. That might be the explanation for the absurdly high house prices I was surprised at
ReplyDelete(http://www.matthewturner.co.uk/Blog/2007/12/really.html)
if the saleable sector is smaller than normal and skewed to the upper-end.
Apparently 28% is council/housing association compared with about 11% in the rest of the UK, so that's perhaps an explanation.