Council housing allocation - 4 comments

A few days late, but here's a thought-provoking article on entitlement to council housing at UK Commentators. The conclusion is a challenging one:

What the [BBC] programme basically tells us is that Margaret Hodge's allegations on housing were correct. Recently arrived economic migrants and those granted asylum can go straight to the top of the queue - because it's needs-based rather than entitlement-based.

Do read it all, but I'm sure Labour supporters are still right to reject the false choice and unpleasant politics implied in such a position.

Some thoughts: firstly, the idea that we should shift the allocation of scarce resources from being on the basis of need to one of entitlement - or vice versa - is a ludicrous one, as if anyone can acquire an entitlement to social housing without some degree of need, and as if 'entitlement' is worth the paper it's written on when the supply of housing is so short. That much can't be in doubt. What might be in doubt is whether people accept that spending longer in a queue should give one priority over someone with greater (adjudged) need, further back.

Unlike a Post Office queue, membership of a housing queue doesn't necessarily impose pain and frustration, and where it does, this can be factored into the need calculation. Reading the quotes cited by the original post, one is never far from the belief that the concept of 'need' is devalued by systematic abuse by those claiming to be homeless deceitfully:

WALES: Essentially what we’ve got at the moment is a race to the bottom, What we do is we allocate properties on the basis of how you present yourself to a local council, so you walk in and say I’m homeless you get a greater priority then you walk in and say I’ve managed to do something for myself but I’m still looking for a council property [...]

FIELD: [...] society goes round because people work, because people play the game, because people are decent citizens and that should be rewarded rather than ‘ah look I’m actually homeless or I’ve managed to persuade people that I am deemed to be homeless therefore I should shoot to the top of the list’.

But why can't abuse be detected in advance? Any Council or official prepared to devalue the term 'need' can only do so if promoting entitlement-solutions is more important than protecting those for whom need is a meaningful term, and an urgent one. It's not as if the losers are being compensated for having to wait in line with vouchers that could be redeemed against public/private-sector rents in other localities.

Perhaps the real injustice is the concept of the queue, itself - unfair to those with great need near the back, and to those with slightly less who get leap-frogged near the front. Here's a fairer alternative - a lottery: devise a system of 'points' for each housing case, which are allocated according to 'need', its urgency, as well as length of time already spent in the queue. For each vacancy that comes up, calculate the total number of points, select a random number within, and allocate the place to whoever has the winning ticket. Repeat for each vacancy, making the tariff and the (anonymised) results available to the public, and penalising anyone found to have abused the system.

Increasing the supply of housing is not a sufficient solution, and should not be used to project 'difficult' allocation decisions several years into the future. The mechanism above would work now, and should be fairer for all while social housing is in short supply, without requiring the slightest nod towards those whose housing agenda is a cover for discriminatory community-building, or to those politicians who seek to profit one way or another from local controversies.

Race, class, and candidate selection - 29 comments

I do find the level of interest in our deputy leadership election a bit mystifying, but I read via TMP (with more at BBC News) that the contenders have been discussing the idea of all-BME ("black and minority ethnic") candidacy shortlists as a way of addressing the relatively low incidence of BME MPs (the small matter of the gap between becoming a candidate and becoming an MP was not discussed).

Apparently Hazel Blears, Jon Cruddas and Peter Hain all back the idea of shortlists, and according to TMP:

Hazel Blears MP, the Party Chair, [...] said she was going to call on Labour’s National Executive Committee "to draw up a code of conduct to move towards all BME shortlists". [...]

The party is in the process of taking legal advice on the issue. Lawyers predict that the race relations legislation will need to be amended to allow the introduction of the measure.

I'd like to hear one of the candidates explain how it is not racist to deny somebody the chance to stand as a Labour candidate on the basis of the racial category people have placed them in, and which no action on their part can ever change. The same, of course, goes for all-women shortlists. What you give to one group via "positive" discrimination you take from another, and when you discriminate on the basis of race, you become a practitioner of racism. Perhaps you mean well - in which case you're merely foolish. No doubt the BNP (and worse) would fancy rewriting the Race Relations Acts if they ever acquired the power to do so. This is a sign - that candidates ought to mark well - that the Acts are doing their job.

It would be a much better use of Hazel, Jon, and Peter's time to explain to all Labour supporters why they should consider standing as a candidate: what the point of being an MP is, what can be achieved, what can be expected, and why other careers just can't cut it in comparison, rather than assuming that racial discrimination is the best explanation for the relatively low proportion of BME MPs. I believe we should go to a considerable amount of trouble to identify what the reasons are, because I believe that a healthier society is one in which racial (and other) differences count for nothing, people are freed from discrimination to make their own decisions, and it's apparent to all citizens that people they identify with are represented in all levels of public life. If, say, we were able to prove that the relatively low proportion of BME MPs was largely due to the fact that BME citizens generally preferred to pursue their own careers, or believed that becoming an MP was a waste of time - which must be pretty likely, however misguided a belief that would be... - our course of action will be different, and we can avoid tinkering with the law, the possibility of Peter Law-style legal battles, and dividing the anti-racist movement.

*

One division among potential candidates that few people seem to cite is our old friend, socio-economic class. Here's a run-down of candidates for the seat of Croydon Central. This is described as being a "strong line-up". Well it is, but that uses a definition of "strong" I'm not politically comfortable with.

I don't see why we should be any more pleased that a barrister, a policy adviser, or an existing councillor is on the list than an electrician, a bus driver, a nurse, or an unemployed former bank clerk. Of course candidates must be selected on merit, and perhaps only a small proportion of club bouncers would be capable of serving their constituents as effectively they deserve (I've no evidence in either direction), but we're not even talking about shortlists here - these people are all untested.

So, the lack of ordinary people and, for that matter, the low proportion of candidates from private sector employment - where, after all, approximately 80% of the labour force work - is a big concern. The more our elected members appear to come from a similar background - whether in terms of race, religion, age, gender, education, or employment - the narrower the Labour movement must appear to the population. I'd like our candidates to prove their strength to the electorate, and especially in government, not just demonstrate a CV with impressive-sounding credentials.

Politics for Grown-ups - 2 comments

There hasn't been a great deal of coverage across the Labour blogosphere of the controversial "blacked-up" Cameron spoof, involving Councillor Bob, Ministry of Truth, and certain (mostly opportunistic Conservative) bloggers.

That's a shame, because even if Cameron is apparently implicated in scandals over "cash-for-access", and evading penalty fares on the Underground, I don't know if that tells us much we didn't know about the trappings of power (or the loving attention he's been receiving in the MSM). The row over this spoof, though, is much more interesting.

The original post at MoT, containing the so-called offending image and "Yo Niggahs!" caption (now since moved to another post, and also featured at Bob's), attracted - in blog terms - a storm of protest from bloggers, who no doubt expected some kind of Labour scalp. This was followed in turn by coverage at the BBC, in the local press, the Daily Mail, and (apparently) Sky News. Not at all suspicious, that. What are we to make of the spoof being: "Offensive", "Nasty", "Distasteful", and "Overstepping the mark"?

What all of this boils down to is other people trying to force their own particular moral codes upon you, as a blogger. That isn't a healthy place to be. If the accusers happen to be people from your own peer group, blogging community, or social circle, you might be wise to reflect on your actions. You may be looking at an orchestrated campaign of political bullying - the use of hostile comments, media intrusion, stress, and inconvenience, to force a concession or an apology, when no law has been broken. Even if you accept that offence was genuinely taken (which I'm not sure I do accept, in this particular case) - you may find yourself up against people and groups whose offence-threshold is so low that you cannot debate with them on equal terms, and your right to free speech has been nullified.

The giving and taking of offence is not a zero-sum game: once "taken" by a politically-/racially-/religiously-/nationalistically-motivated individual, it can be appropriated on behalf of an entire community, nation, or religion. It can also be projected by a self-appointed group of citizens on behalf of another group. That can be justified when there is real public sympathy for genuinely victimised groups without a strong public voice, but the interest can be self-serving too. The Ministry of Truth's follow-up is essential reading here.

As much as anything, though, offence is not an argument. The right approach to being accused of causing offence is surely to invite the accuser to discuss the basis upon which they claim to have been offended, and how that can be resolved. They might have a point - but if no answer is forthcoming, one should proceed with a level of energy that is in direct proportion to the level of power and influence of the individual making the original suggestion. Offence without argument is just humbug, and those attempting to make political capital - or apply political pressure - sanctimonious prigs. God help Cameron if that's the state of the blogosphere he (heaven forfend) - someday - presides over.

The irony is that however visually silly the original spoof image, and how clumsily rendered (not that I could do any better), the debate that grew up once people's knees had jerked a few times - and once those who can only work that way had vacated the area - was all the more interesting and constructive. Politics is for grown-ups, however old they are.

Finally: perhaps the most inane contribution to the debate I've encountered has been this comment at Tim Worstall's (ninth one down):

It's taken more than 40 years to take the word n***** out of circulation. So for these two clowns to use it to make a political point against a shambolic Tory party that has one foot in the political grave is shameful.

Of course one sort of racism has been enshrined in - and manifested by - the saying of that word, but to conflate that word and racism is ridiculous. People who obsess over mere words are not people that the genuinely downtrodden deserve on their case: a particular word falling out of favour may make public discourse sound nicer, but it's no substitute for action, and language develops so quickly that new words always appear to take the place of others.

Racism is manifested by crimes and injustices, through callousness and contempt, and through exploitation and ignorance. It's solved when people learn to (or rather, remember how to) treat others as equals, and it's helped by punishing those who abuse; rejecting those who seek to reinforce these artificial barriers to free human interaction; those who try to take down one, only to replace it with another; as well as those who try to bully long-standing anti-racists for the crime of not playing by their rules.

Update (13/12): As it's my habit to take about 2 days to write each post, I've been overtaken by events already. Bob has said he's to take a break from blogging:

I have decided to take a break from blogging. The intention of this site in the first place, influenced by Tom Watson and Bloggerheads, was to entertain, inform, and yes, provoke a bit too. I’ve had some good banter with folks over the last couple of years, some of it on both sides getting a bit tetchy and even abusive from time to time.

I never took it personally, and if others did, perhaps I’m now in a better position to understand that... but throughout it all, I quite enjoyed it… until this last week. Some people decided I had gone too far and said so. We had some banter, but then it got totally out of control and I have had a weekend of the most vile abuse, partially provoked by a Conservative who accused me of being sympathetic to the BNP on his blog site.

For someone of my political views, that and the abuse that followed, much of it from far right organisations, has been unacceptable, so, for the time being at least… count me out of your games.

That's very disappointing news, but hopefully Bob will be able to make a comeback in the New Year.

Update 2 (13/12): Another good post about the Tory MP trying to profit from this...
Update 3 (13/12): More offence? The original seemed quite mild to me.