Poverty and Privilege in Hull

The genuine issue of child poverty in the UK is one that has often gone under-reported, or rather mis-reported.  The debate often becomes binary and centres on the notions of 'absolute' and' relative' poverty or 'the deserving and un-deserving poor'; the notion of fairness (see below) as explored by HullRepublic in an earlier blog also plays a part. 


It has been interesting to note the responses to the working class, once a proud section of British society, now derided by celebrities as some kind blood sport - 'Little Britain' being one of the most 'popular' of recent examples, with the repugnant Vicky Pollard character. A representation of young working class girls. It is perhaps easier to demonise those who are less fortunate.

In contrast to this there has been a significant contribution to the debate from the BBC with the excellent documentary Poor Kids and the less considered, more selective but still useful The Scheme; both documentaries offer a portrait of poverty in the UK in the 21st Century.  The re-emergence of the word 'poverty' is a small success after New Labour's use of the term 'social exclusion' (a term intended to define a series of inter-connected issues resulting in difficult to change behaviours and social problems) as it is less ambiguous.  Many may find the term difficult however, still more struggle with the idea that anyone, let alone children, are poor in the UK.

When watching ‘The Scheme’, HullRepublic searched on Twitter and was genuinely shocked by the responses of many; one tweeter (in response to HullRePublic) stated, "This scummy lot get out of life what they put in, fuck all".  This lack of understanding and compassion is represented well in the mainstream print media but fails to acknowledge the complexity of the issues some people in society face; there is a reactionary standpoint regarding the protection of younger children, but by the time they reach adolescence empathy diminishes, by the time these children have grown into adulthood empathy, often, vanishes completely.

If we consider Governmental responses to child poverty the situation worsens; the previous administration did make attempts to tackle child poverty, but the widening equality gap remains an issue; one potential analysis is offered by the Child Poverty Action Group regarding the current administration making attempts to extricate Government from real responsibility to mitigate against the ravaging affects of poverty in this country.

Is it any more possible for an old Etonian, Oxford educated, Bullingdon Club graduate to escape his background and associated culture than it is the child born into poverty, in a family with low expectations and a community that has been failed by successive governments? 

One of the above groups may have a paucity of opportunity and finance; the other has a paucity of understanding and empathy. This is evidenced by the Coalition's recent preoccupation on the commercialisation and sexualisation of the nation's children.

HullRePublic see the importance of assessing the needs of children in the round but is it possible to reconcile the focus on this subject with the Governments' intention to reduce their commitment to acting to end child poverty? If a child does not eat, lives in damp, squalid accommodation and has lowered life chances and life expectancy is the priority whether, or not, they are exposed to rampant commercialism? How does the Bailey Review fit with the belief inherent within the current public/private discourse of the ability of the Market to regulate itself? 

Many children will never experience poverty or financial hardship of any sort what else do-privileged parents have to worry about? The Bailey Review says more about those who commissioned and wrote it than it does about childhood in the 21st century. The endless harking back to a golden era of childhood is a fallacy.  An OECD report ranks the UK as 28th of 35 major economies in enabling the poorest to succeed; for the UK to be a leading innovator and creative power in the 21st century this must change.

Poverty in Hull

Poverty in Hull sadly remains an issue for some families and individuals. They feel this in a very real sense on a daily basis. The consequences of experiencing or living in poverty can be, and often are, far reaching. It is easy to sit in judgment of others, whilst not actually understanding their situation or plight.

Some people have much more than they need to live; others don't have enough. Very frequently, the 'haves' possess no special virtues; they are simply lucky to have been born in relatively affluent societies. Very frequently, the 'have-nots' are desperate through no fault of their own — for example, victims of natural disasters such as famine. Peter Singer, in his essay 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality' (1971) asks: what are the obligations of the 'haves' toward the 'have-nots' in these cases?

@PeterSinger is famous for, among other things, the development of what he calls the; Greater Moral Evil Principle:

“If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.”

What has that got to do with me?

There is still much poverty in Hull. It’s a fact. There’s no dressing it up, it is a harsh reality of some parts of the city in which we live. There are some people who are simply not aware. There are some who are aware, yet choose to ignore this and do nothing. This is their choice. Is it possible for them to claim that they have no 'duties' to those who are less fortunate? We make no judgement or claim here. 

If we explore one of his most commonly used examples of this in practice, things perhaps become a little clearer. We have localised it. The case of the drowning child:

You’re walking through Pearson Park. You have just bought yourself some new trainers and jeans. You’re on your way to meet some friends on Princes Avenue. You see a toddler in the pond. There does not appear to be anyone else about. It’s clear that the toddler will drown if you do not intervene. In order to save the toddler, all you have to is wade in to the pond. You will ruin your new clothes. There is no time to remove them if you are to save the child. What would you do?

On the traditional view, you have an unavoidable duty to refrain from killing anybody, and thus a duty not to jump into the pond and hold the child’s head under water until it’s dead. But seeing that the child is drowning, you have no obligation to do anything for the child that you haven’t specifically promised to do. So if you haven’t promised to try to save the drowning child’s life – as, say, a parent or a lifeguard would have – you don’t, morally, have to do anything; you can just sit back and watch the child drown.

@PeterSinger thinks this case shows how ridiculous the general/specific duty distinction is. Singer thinks it’s obvious that you are guilty of a grave moral offense if you just stand by and do nothing. You can’t say “I’m not guilty because I didn’t do anything bad.” There are sins of omission as well as sins of commission.

Is it possible for us to extend this principle to those families living in poverty in Hull? We know, as there is a mountain of evidence, those children living in poverty suffer in a number of ways. We can also be clear that their life chances, opportunities and emotional well-being can be significantly reduced and damaged, as a result of their situation, which is no fault of their own.

We could argue that the welfare state provides, so nobody should actually be living in poverty. We could argue that poverty is relative and that there are people in third world countries that are worse off. We could even argue that their parents should go out and get a job. We do not intend to individually address each of these common, ill informed retorts, but would suggest instead we direct you to further reading or the myriad of evidence against these assertions. 


If only life were so simple. The stark reality is that many children and families are genuinely struggling. Today. In our city. We have some excellent examples public and voluntary sector work in many areas, yet for some, it is still not enough. However, in addition, the watering hole has shrunk, as we all know.

Making the change

If we know that this is happening, now, in our city, then what is the incentive for us not to act, as perhaps you would have done with the drowning child? If it is within our power to prevent something bad from happening – what is our role? Whose responsibility is it? Are you a voyeur or an agent of change?

This is not a moral crusade. We’re not suggesting if you don’t start doing soup kitchen runs for the homeless, you’re morally bankrupt. We appreciate that everyone has lives, their own issues, own problems. We all do, at different times, to varying degrees. 

What we are saying though, is that if you have some time to help out in some small way in the city, perhaps in your own neighbourhood or network, then your contribution could make a massive difference to someone, or something. It could only be good for the city, and perhaps, for you.

One tried and tested method of making a contribution is volunteering. There are countless opportunities to do this in Hull. It can make a huge difference to local people, whilst also helping out with your CV or perhaps your moral balance, whatever floats your boat. Everyone is a winner. 

It’s worth spending some time having a look through this website. It’s simple to use, just type in Hull and see what comes up. www.do-it.org 

Give it a whirl. You never know.

Game Ain't Based On Sympathy (GABOS).

The many fronts the Coalition have opened can seem bewildering (from the NHS, to LA funding, voluntary and community sector, schools, cancelling the Building Schools for the Future programme, teacher training and higher education funding, tuition fees and Welfare reform, Trident, Social Work reform, Forests, Police pay and conditions, the list goes on).

Arguably, this is intentionally confusing; the interconnectedness of the system is disregarded and broken down into constituent parts, by disaggregating the system in this way it becomes very difficult to track the overall impact of the reforms. The subsequent impacts are impossible to reassemble and the result is chaos; chaos that facilitates pushing though changes more radical in application, than even the Thatcher Government dared. This is, in fact, the point; by creating chaos and fracturing systems, society fractures into many smaller groups, many of whom become disempowered. Overall, attention then becomes focused on what directly affects us, rather than the implications for the whole system.


Some have argued that the plan is actually not working. We suggest that it really depends on what the real plan actually is. The lessons learned as a result of Blair's reflections on Government have not gone unnoticed. He reflected that within the first couple of years of Government, New Labour wasted much time being concerned about the relative distractions of public and media opinion, rather than implementing the scale and pace of change they wanted to see. The speed and depth of change under the coalition has been staggering. This 'lesson' has been learned, and developed, by the right and coupled with their effective management of public opinion and media campaign of 'we're all in this together', which has led to dramatic results. At time of writing, the Liberal Democrats are being hounded for 'selling out to right wing ideals', whilst the Tories are actually gaining in the opinion polls, currently balanced with Labour. This learning curve and revised approach of the right, has been pointed squarely and firmly at public sector reform and the welfare state. This approach to speed and pace of their 'reform' is consistent with, and common to chaos theory. It is also known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Just a small change in the initial conditions can drastically change the long-term behavior of a system. If we consider the initial changes as being public sector funding and delivery and the long-term behaviour of the system being the welfare state, it would suggest that despite the ‘chaos’ plans in this context are firmly on track.

The excellent 'All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace' highlights the work of Ayn Rand and her theory of individualism that has gained ground and acceptance in many areas. Rand postulated that one's self-interest should always take precedence and that selfishness is, in fact, a virtue.  This finds a comfortable home in the current ideological stand point of the Coalition; to go further, political chaos theory serves to create such uncertainty that the ideologues in the Tory party can push through change more quickly and isolate us further.

Tory led policy that isolates us in our own experience has been very effective in the past, making community cohesion difficult; a recent example being welfare reformist Lord Freud, who is stating that spare rooms in social housing is something that the country can no longer afford. The fact that this in many cases targets the vulnerable and fractures communities, appears not to have registered, it certainly has little or nothing to do with reform. The challenge is to remain united in opposition to such attacks. To track the impacts and maintain a clear vision of what we need to develop inclusive systems and reject the scapegoating of some sections of our communities, whether they are demonised as 'chavs', immigrants or the vulnerable.

The recent furore surrounding both Dorries’ and Clarke’s comments about the sexual abuse of children and rape respectively demonstrate a remarkable lack of understanding about complex issues. Dorries’ comments that abstinence and children saying ‘no’ to their abusers would lead to a reduction in the incidence of child sexual abuse is unhelpful, at best. To follow this maxim the abused adults in last weeks excellent Panorama programme on the BBC should have objected to their treatment and accepted their personal responsibility for the situation. These comments minimise the impact of such offences and makes the victim complicit in the abuse. Clarke’s comments fail to address the nature of male sexual violence and concentrate instead on categorising 'types' of rape. To understand these somewhat blinkered views one must acknowledge the way in which Tory policy is made. The isolation of both privilege and the Palace of Westminster seems to make it difficult for ministers and MPs to engage with subjects in a rational manner. Opposition for the Tories should have facilitated the kind of listening exercise in which they are currently involved in relation to the proposed reforms of the NHS. The NHS reforms have failed spectacularly to gain support from anyone other than the most ardent and sycophantic implementers of this right-wide ideology as they were hatched behind closed doors by those with a lack of insight.

This ideological standpoint of simply ‘knowing’ what is right because of a quirk of one's birth or by one's position manifests itself in policy that is roundly condemned by those working in the sector.  The slavish promotion of, and use of moral language to justify, individual responsibility affects even the politician here and Ministers are hung out to dry by the Party if policy fails to garner public support. Arguably, this scapegoating of individuals is again intended to deflect our attention from the whole; to take the NHS reforms as an example, Lansley is to blame for this not the Tory Party or the LibDems, despite the fact that both party leaders signed the policy off.

There was much talk by the Coalition of a new politics, this has not materialised; our current version of politics is not new, it is old and rotten to the core. The Coalition has no mandate for these reforms as much of it was in neither Party's manifesto nor the Coalition agreement. We find it shameful to hear the Foreign Secretary speak of supporting democracy in the Middle East (whilst waging war there) as our own model of democracy is broken, more broken now than it has been in living memory.

Is this the democracy we want?  We value our personal freedoms, of course, but should they take precedence over the need to develop a coherent whole?

Thanks for reading.

Best

The HullRePublic Team

Hull Elections - Sober challenges after the Red dawn

We write this blog as we enter into the first few days of a new political landscape in Hull.  The Liberal administration was convincingly defeated in all but two of the ward areas in this election round, which sent out a clear message from the public that they had become dissatisfied with the Liberal approach locally, with this inevitably also linked to the national picture.

It is perhaps not surprising that communities like Hull have sent out a message and used their first opportunity to ‘bite back.’ Northern authorities like Hull, North East Lincolnshire, Sheffield, or Liverpool, who have large working class communities, areas of genuine poverty and complex social issues, also have as a result, large public and voluntary sector infrastructures. These areas in particular have been decimated by Tory cuts.

It could be argued that this is in fact not simply a tragic co-incidence. The formula used to determine the level of cuts to Local Authority areas had the most dramatic impact upon Northern cities. It is not a co-incidence that many of the wealthier Tory authorities have not had to endure anywhere near the same level of funding reductions. As a result, their communities have remained comparatively unaffected. These are the same communities where in this latest round of elections, the Tories have managed to maintain their local seats. David Cameron has been defined by his party post local election as being the ‘Lord of all he surveys.’

Many people in Hull have already felt this gradual dismantling of the welfare state and loss of services to some of the most vulnerable, in very real terms.  The reduction of support services, closure of some community organisations and the threat of living in communities which are made even more ‘unsafe’ for vulnerable children, young people and families has been too much to bear.  This is perhaps epitomised most clearly by a recent letter from a group of Managers in Hull Social Care, which was leaked to the Hull Daily Mail, highlighting some of their very real concerns about the potential impact the scale of cuts would have on vulnerable children in the city. 

This has led to some public challenge and demonstration in Hull, with a reinvigorated, politicised approach by many to make a stand against what they perceive to be wrong, perhaps one of the most vociferous displays emerging from the unions.

It has not helped the Liberal position locally that the party nationally has chosen to align itself as a coalition to the Tories. In many ways, the value base and ideology of the parties have been diametrically opposed. The issue of tuition fees has been one of the issues that has burned the Liberals. It is this kind of U-turn in policy thinking that has caused such significant damage. 

The impact of this national policy locally has been far reaching. In addition to aspirations being damaged and higher Education seemingly being put out of reach, Hull City Council is now allegedly set to remove the opportunity for paying for the university education of Care leavers for whom they have a corporate responsibility. This could be a tragedy and could well be the thing that would prevent those young people, who have been in many ways failed and among the most vulnerable in Hull, from achieving a degree against already slim odds.    

As previously posted via our Guest blog, the far right had made attempts to capitalise on national dissatisfaction and targeted Hull. Thankfully, none of the candidates made any real progress, but the fact that they are planting seeds in the city, offers a challenge from the right that simply must not be ignored, if communities in Hull are to flourish.

So, what next?

The implications and challenges for the city are huge, as we will see a new wave of power, influence and philosophy. We will see new alliances and relationships and an expectation, by many, to stem the tide of public sector funding cuts.

Against the backdrop of initial euphoria that some across the city will be experiencing, will quickly come to the realisation of the sober challenges that still exist. The financial envelope remains the same. The same public and voluntary sector infrastructure is in place.  The demands and challenges of establishing an effective business community or the development of the Humber renewable programme will take some real political endeavour.

Speaking of ‘Endeavour’, there are a plethora of ‘smaller-scale’ issues that will need tackling, some of which are highlighted in the Hull Daily Mail today. There is also the local media, who will be watching very closely every move, decision and response from the new administration. 

Hull’s very own ‘Pocket Paxman’, Peter Levy offered a disappointing welcome to Cllr Brady on Look North. Levy stating that he perceived Cllr Brady to be ‘friend of the unions’ and patronisingly questioning whether or not he had the capacity or 'skills to negotiate with an MD of a large multi-national?' Regardless of political persuasion, it is not helpful to have ‘an ‘impartial BBC’ stooping to cheap shots like this. It certainly doesn’t help Hull.

All of this also comes with an increased weight of expectation from local communities, unions and local business.

Whatever happens and whoever is in the driving seat, we remain committed to supporting and enabling the process of achieving successful communities within Hull. We wish the administration well, as we did the last and will no doubt the next.

What is important is that we have a forward thinking, inclusive and inspirational Hull.

That is our statement of well-being – Getting there remains our collective challenge.

Best

HullRePublic

Get in touch. Share. Make the change.

Guest Blog: Threat from the Right.

HullRePublic are proud to present our first Guest Blog.  We were contacted by Davey from Hull who wanted to draw attention to an issue presenting itself in Hull.  On May the 5th Hull will go to the polls in the Local Elections; an opportunity for us all to shape the political landscape of our City.  Below Davey expresses his concern about particular political groups targeting Hull:

Threat from the Right.

In Hull's local elections in 2002 there were three candidates who aligned themselves to parties of the far right*. This year, out of the 19 seats that are being contested, there are 17 candidates representing right-wing parties, seeking your vote across 15 wards**. This is clear evidence that extreme right-wing organisations are now 'targeting' Hull.

It is perhaps timely to remind you that as the local elections approach (Thursday 5^th May), the far right preys on what they perceive to be the basic fears of local people. The fear of change, the fear of the unknown. They offer a 'solution', but a solution based on narrow mindedness and insular-ism. These are mindsets that do not assist the cultural and economic growth of our cities and communities, but restrict, stifle and strangle them.

Many years ago the far right contested a handful of seats in General Elections, as well as well making a stand (although normally losing their deposit) in by-elections. In 2001 things changed in the run up to General Election in Oldham.

For decades, the communities of Oldham worked to establish bonds and unity between the various social and ethnic groups. Although they had faced difficulties, many had been overcome. Sadly, much of this was undone in Spring 2001 when, Nick Griffin, Chairman of a right-wing organisation announced his intention to stand in the forthcoming General Elections. This led to a very public campaign based on prejudice, hate and division. The resulting riots and disturbances in the weeks leading up to the election (and following), were widely reported in the national press. At one point it was suggested (by the right) that barricades in the style of Belfast should be build to segregate the communities.There was, of course, no need for barricades. There was no need for a physical barrier against sections of the community, as the logical mind knew to be an imaginary and divisive threat.

Over recent years the far-right seem to have learnt the effectiveness of local campaigning. It is clear who the parties are and more importantly what they represent. This is mainly restricted immigration and repatriation, not forgetting the targeting of the gay community.  Additionally, they aim to implement a restriction of services to those people 'not born in this Country' – I use that words loosely, as for many of these organisations there is a noticeable blurring between England and the UK. Furthermore, there seems to no answer to the question of whether this applies to people of UK parentage, but who happened to be born on foreign shores? Some claim to seek greater democracy and a return to Christian values...a fine sentiment when every Church of England Bishop has a seat in the House of Lords - and we know how often the Lords get elected! David Cameron has made 117 new, unelected Lords since his election, at the same time as he proposes to reduce the number of democratically elected MP's by 50, as a cost saving measure. Then there is the question of those Christian values in what is now our 'multi-cultural society.'

What has changed over the last few years? 


Economically, of course, things have got harder for all of us, there's no denying that. This is one of the things that the far right prey on. They offer the electorate someone to blame, be it the immigrants, the LGBT or Jewish communities; then they offer us their solution. The return to 'basic British ideals', amongst them teaching our children the '3 R's'. A fine sentiment, but is that enough to equip the workforce of tomorrow in this technological age?

Sadly, all this boils down to one thing, and it's something that I've avoided having to write about because of the bad taste it leaves in my mouth, that is HATE.

As a city, our time and energies should not be spent looking back to what used to be, or what might have been. They are best served looking forward to a united community. A community of inclusion, that works together to make a better place.

The communities of Oldham say they did not see the threat from the right coming until it was too late. As a result many years of work building the community was undone. Many more years were spent repairing that damage. In Hull we can see the threat coming, and the far-right are using our elections to seek power in our city. We as a city, and as communities have the opportunity to reject these parties, and make our voice heard. But this can only be done at the polling booth.

Now, more than ever before, your vote is truly valuable, and we urge to use your vote, but please, consider the options available in your ward. Whatever you decide, do vote – whichever way you see fit, for a candidate that wishes to create communities that are both united and rich...not just financially, but also culturally rich.

Hull has no place for extremists. There is no place here for racism. Our communities have no room for hate.

Thanks for reading.

Davey for HullRePublic

*Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_Council_election,_2002

**Hull City Council Website: http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=221,585589&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

Sources:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jun/10/race.thefarright

http://www.poptel.org.uk/scgn/archive/articles/0503/p6d.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Oldham_race_riots

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1702201.stm

http://www.voteenglish.org/what-we-stand-for/

http://www.ukip.org/page/ukip-local-manifesto-2011

http://www.national-front.org.uk/

http://www.bnp.org.uk/manifesto

http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=221,585589&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_Council_election,_2002

HullRePublic would like to thank Davey for his contribution and co-operation during the editorial process. We invite submissions for our Guest Blog series, if you have an issue you would like to draw attention to please Get in Touch. Share. Make the Change.

Thanks for reading.

Best

HullRePublic Team

The Body Politic

The role the City plays in people’s lives cannot, and should not, be underestimated, the City provides the very fabric within which we live and breathe; environments are not passive, they shape us, creating opportunities or oppressing; their role is pivotal.

The City has active processes and structures. The interplay between new and old environments and communities creates tensions and excitement; navigating these tensions is challenging as many are difficult to define. Walking through any modern City it is impossible to fully comprehend the scene one encounters; the scale and multiplicity of our environments can be overwhelming, imagining the number of individual tasks taken to create a modern City; the individual experiences, aspirations, failures and successes is not possible.

Hull is a City like many others, experiencing the negative consequences of post-industrialisation whilst maintaining a strong identity; much of this identity is mythic, much stereotypical, much of it self-sustaining. Yet the identity of our City is difficult to define; it shifts and changes over time. The recent changes in Hull’s physical and psychological landscape are refreshing and to be welcomed; the DIY culture represented by the many independent shops, bars, restaurants and galleries evidences a self-sufficiency and resilience that many Cities should regard jealously.

Are opportunities to participate in this rebirth open to all? Where do our marginalised communities fit into this? Understanding the motivations of people to participate as primarily individual or collective helps shape the spaces for their engagement, creating shared spaces and integrating those who do no usually participate by addressing the barriers to their involvement (economic, educational or cultural) is essential. Communities develop durable identities, providing, in no small part, feelings of attachment, belonging and security. 


The social theorist Charles Murray (1996) postulates that disadvantaged communities actively disengage from mainstream society becoming a self-regulating ‘underclass’, subsequently causing mainstream society a range of problems. This overly simplistic and pejorative analysis fails to take into account the role of the state in providing opportunities for citizens and to be responsive to their needs rather than developing an analysis that justifies isolating them further.  The collective role of Cities was effectively lost through the dispersal of populations into scattered suburbs and single function housing estates (Rogers, R. 2000). This annexation of traditional working class communities has led to social isolation and exclusion that will persist if left unchallenged. Proximity with others from different social and income groups develops understanding of others and can go someway towards addressing these inequalities. If communities remain separate and isolated difficulties can become compounded over generations; this cannot be accepted in a just society.


In acknowledging these distinct identities the City as system can be pivotal in securing more positive outcomes for residents; a successful City creates spaces (physical, social and psychological) for people to meet, to discuss and to collaborate. The work of Arc in trying to define ‘Hullness’ offers a model that all can invest in whilst a narrow definition of the City monopolised by established organisations or groups is counter-productive. ‘Hullness’ is owned by all and necessarily inclusive of all.  Another useful exemplar is the New York based 'Urban Design Week' that intends to engage residents in a discourse about change and asks residents to 'Tell us how you think New York's public realm could be more beautiful, smart, safe and live-able'.(http://www.urbandesignweek.org/); ostensibly about the City but aiming squarely at people and lives lived.

Forging links between communities is challenging, to identify these challenges is the first step to overcoming them; to facilitate a discourse in relation to change, to identify commonalities and to share plans for the future the next. Such a process needs to encompass more than the co-opted notion of community participation currently adopted, we need engagement that challenges preconceptions, that acknowledges the role of all stakeholders in securing positives outcomes. Participation provides a locus for this ongoing process ‘where the will of an organisation and the will of its subjects engage with and attempt to influence and realign one another’ (Gallagher, M. 2006)

Open government and local administrations willing to share (real) power will engender a positive interchange of ideas and create a shared social vision. This points to a politicisation of the marginalised, opening systems and processes to all. The effects of this would be dramatic; politicians would become truly accountable, no longer able to rely the rhetoric of the Big Society and the disingenuous notion of public service. The political class would be facilitators of change rather than implementers of ideologies.

The City (not simply institutions) becomes all powerful, a system capable of organising its own future, providing spaces for its people; by the City, for the City. The opportunity to build an inclusive and collaborative City is a challenge to us all and has at its core the notion that social cohesion and social justice are for the common good.

Thanks for reading.

Get in touch.  Share.  Make the change.

HullRePublic Team.

Pickled Fairness? The Big Fat Gypsy Prejudice

In recent weeks, there has been some reporting locally about issues with a transient Gypsy community in Hull, temporarily setting up home on unauthorised sites. This was met with some concern locally. A local Gypsy project worker suggested it was due to there being insufficient fixed berths locally to accommodate the community. Nationally, it is estimated that approximately 300 families are displaced at any one time.

On the national stage, this week saw the introduction of the new measures for dealing with Gypsy – Travellers and related planning application. Eric Pickles MP introduces this new system, purporting a fairer, more equitable process for all concerned.

At first glance, this is good news for a community who have been marginalised, targeted and abused for many years. They are also a community who are frequently misunderstood.

Who are we talking about?

Are we talking about the much-maligned participants of the Channel 4 show ‘Big Fat Gypsy Wedding?’ which focused on a select group of travellers, who many from the community have protested are not representative of their culture or way of life. Much in the same way that Frank Gallagher of Shameless fame does not represent all middle aged, white working class men.

The community is diverse in its racial background and living conditions. In terms of size, estimates vary but are currently placed between 120,000 to 300,000 people. Despite popular misconceptions about the community, around half of all Gypsy -Travellers live in houses, the other half live in caravans on private caravan sites, public (council) caravan sites. Due to lack of approved pitches or sites, coupled with the incessant prejudice and attacks they face, many however are forced to live on unauthorised encampments, wherever they can find land that is suitable. Wherever the community is situated, they often face hostility, prejudice and attacks. Worryingly, those in all walks of life, often accept this as a social norm both within the community and outside. A useful examination of the sites and rights of the community is highlighted here

Pickled Fairness?

Communities Minister Andrew Stunell commented this week:

"The majority of travellers are law-abiding citizens and they should be given the same opportunities as everyone else to live in a safe place where they can bring up their children.”

This sounds hopeful then, surely? After years of abuse and socially acceptable prejudice, we are now to understand that we will have a fairer system.

Whether or not this is a fairer process will largely depend on the concept of fairness being used to develop the policy.

David Cameron has an interesting perception of fairness and has indicated his belief that fairness should be based upon what people deserve 

He states, “Fairness means giving people what they deserve – and what people deserve depends on how they behave."

This approach has very different consequences for any policy development. One immediate question that springs to mind here is – who decides what people deserve and what is that based upon?

One of the major causes of conflict in any community arises when people think things are not fair. By fair, we usually include the ideas of just, equal, good, ethical or moral, and the ways we can achieve these things.

As with many minority groups, the perception of this community is often negative to those who live outside of it. Many people have a perspective of the community, which is not based upon personal experience, but is a combination of negative stereotypes, which have become the norm in recent decades. There is also a lack of understanding about the payment of rates or taxes, which is a common line of argument against the community. The frequent negative media coverage about Travellers, often about unauthorised sites coupled with the popular Channel 4 sensationalist show Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, may not particularly support the perception of this community.

There is a need for further information and education for many groups in society to understand the needs and culture of the Gypsy community. We should seek to understand, rather than condemn. Only by enabling people to understand will progress ever really be made.

What has been ‘improved?’

Measures to ‘improve’ the provision and process of establishing (and more specifically disestablishing) Traveller sites include:

• Stronger enforcement powers for councils
• Stronger powers for councils to limit the opportunities for  retrospective planning applications
• Dale Farm funding (Basildon Council given £1.2m to clear unauthorised pitches)
• Stronger rights for residents of authorised council sites -New incentives to build authorised sites
• Training for councillors - the Government will provide £50,000 (NATIONALLY) to support training for councillors about their leadership role in relation to traveller site provision and planning

The recent guidance states that Ministers believe that local planning authorities are best placed to know the needs of their communities, not unelected regional bodies. There is no mention here about the needs of the Gypsy community and their right to articulate their needs, or indeed have them met.

At present we fail to see any improvements or ‘fairness’ from the perspective of the Gypsy community here. Predominantly, we see a strengthening of power to evict and remove travellers, with weight added to the ‘not in my back yard’ approach to planning.

This is a community, who are as large in numbers as the Bangladeshi community in Britain. It would be interesting to see the approach people would take if it were decided that the Government would now target blacks, Jews or the Bangladeshi communities in the same way.

View this interview with Luke Clements of Cardiff University to understand why more Gypsy and Traveller pitches and stopping places are needed, and why the shortage of sites has arisen.

Are these inequalities really justifiable?

In terms of the prejudice and marginalisation many within this community face, it is perhaps not difficult to argue that those who are displaced are among the least advantaged within Britain.

Considering John Rawl's "difference principle" for a second, he says that treating people unequally is only justifiable if by doing so, the least advantaged member of society is made better off.

I don’t think as a society we’ve passed this test yet. What we’ve got is a community further open to abuse and another example of ‘Pickled Fairness.’

Best,

HullRePublic Team

Get in touch. Share. Make the Change.

The first cuts, waves and goodbyes

It is now only two weeks since hundreds of thousands of public sector workers began their journey to the capital to ‘March for the Alternative’, in response to the cuts being implemented by the Tory led Coalition.

As Hull has been decimated by imposed cuts, it is perhaps not surprising that there were a large number of people travelling to participate from our City.

On the whole, feedback to HullRePublic from people wanting to share their experiences of involvement has been positive. For a workforce and the communities made to feel powerless as result of these cuts, having an opportunity to demonstrate and feel that they have contributed in challenging this ideological tsunami crashing down upon the public sector can only be positive. The exhilaration of being part of this for many has been short lived, as we are now beginning to live with the reality of the impact these cuts will have on Hull.

The cuts to predominantly northern cities like Hull are unprecedented. We highlight northern cities, as the cuts have not been evenly distributed across the country. Hull was among the worst hit. Curiously, wealthier Tory areas have been largely unscathed, as has been highlighted by the London School of Economics recently.

Even Thatcher, at the peak of her reign, only implemented 10% public sector cuts. A recent speech given by Tory MP Greg Barker demonstrated an interesting ‘off message’ perspective on the rationale behind this approach to dismantling the welfare state. This a filmed, public address, so he can’t be wandering too far from the ‘message’ surely?

On March 26, the unions and participants of the demonstration were arguing that both of the government’s two key decisions are political choices, not economic necessity:

Eliminating the deficit in just four years is a savage timetable that does not give economic growth the opportunity to raise the nation’s tax make. Indeed the deep cuts promised will depress the economy making deeper cuts necessary to meet this timetable.

Raising four pounds through cuts for every pound raised through tax – and doing most of this through a rise in VAT that hits the poor and those on middle income the most – is deeply unfair. The recession was made in the finance sector, yet banks and those now enjoying gigantic bonuses once again, are not being asked to make a fair contribution.

As one would perhaps expect, the Government has played down the global economic crisis being the primary responsibility for the deficit and the role of the banking system, instead, choosing to lay the blame firmly at the door of the previous Labour Government.

The scale of cuts to the public and voluntary sector in Hull is unimaginable. We are set to see massive reductions in many services in the city, an example highlighted here with some organisations ceasing to exist. To be brutally honest within this blog, it is our opinion that if all of these cuts are implemented in the manner as is being suggested, then vulnerable children; young people and adults will suffer as a result, and in some cases, be left unsafe.

We think it important to state at this point that this is not histrionics. We do not subscribe to the notion that as a collective we should ‘fight the power’, as has been adopted as a mantra by some in the city. We understand that people feel powerless and are concerned about the city and the vulnerable. We are too. However, the approach by some in Hull at present seems to be counter-productive. We need to have informed, rational debate. It’s essential if we are going to make the progress we need to, with much reduced resource.

So, what is the alternative?

This is not and should never be simply about party politics. It is not solely about Senior Managers making decisions about services in isolation of Unions or practitioners who have a developed understanding of the needs of the people they work with, or community in which they work, not being involved. All of these things are ingredients, and form part of the potential answer.

This should be a measured, strategic examination of services with effective resource allocation, based upon evidenced need. Even the most solution focused, optimistic and politically engaged politician or officer in Hull could not confidently say that this has been the case to date. It is easy to sit back and be critical of decisions made, if all you see or feel is the impact of them. It is absolutely right to challenge and engage. Wherever possible though, it needs to be done on the basis of understanding the environment and needs of communities. Not trying to engage constructively to resolve some of these issues will make an already drastic and dangerous situation for some service users, worse.

Yesterday, 345 people left Hull City Council in the first wave of cuts. Many of these staff were front-line workers, with caseloads and worked directly with vulnerable people, serving communities. To say that 24 hours later they were not needed now would simply not be true. This is only the beginning. In fighting, histrionics and blame just serves to divide. The only thing that people have here is an understanding of the needs of communities within the city and dignity. Let us keep it, maintain this and work together strategically to find the solutions to enable Hull to weather this storm and come out safe and intact.

Best.

HullRePublic. 

Get in touch. Share. Make the change.