Article by Peter McVerry in today’s Irish Times in which he says that
‘Part five of the Planning and Development Act 2000, the best policy decision of the past 20 years, required builders to allocate 20 per cent of housing output to social or affordable housing. This would have helped to break down the barriers between “them” and “us”. However, builders, fearing for their profits, and residents, fearing for the value of their house, succeeded in effectively dismantling the policy and re-erecting the invisible walls. Apartheid, Irish-style, based not on colour but address.’
Who agrees/disagrees with him and why?
In my view the sprawling council estate policy has failed in Ireland and elsewhere and this is worth a try. The arguments I presume would be along the lines of people not being happy paying for a house while the fella next door is getting it for next to free. Hard to argue against that and envy is all powerful but if people could suck it up it would certainly have knock on effects for society in the long term and help make it more equal.
Or the ‘they’re all scum and you couldn’t live beside them’ argument.
Personally feel it’s the ghettoisation of certain people that turns them into ‘scum’ and within a generation of living together in estates there’d be no real difference in the vast majority of people.
Does anyone know of estates where this policy was tried properly and worked/didn’t work?
[QUOTE=“Tabby, post: 972174, member: 2142”]Article by Peter McVerry in today’s Irish Times in which he says that
‘Part five of the Planning and Development Act 2000, the best policy decision of the past 20 years, required builders to allocate 20 per cent of housing output to social or affordable housing. This would have helped to break down the barriers between “them” and “us”. However, builders, fearing for their profits, and residents, fearing for the value of their house, succeeded in effectively dismantling the policy and re-erecting the invisible walls. Apartheid, Irish-style, based not on colour but address.’
Who agrees/disagrees with him and why?
In my view the sprawling council estate policy has failed in Ireland and elsewhere and this is worth a try. The arguments I presume would be along the lines of people not being happy paying for a house while the fella next door is getting it for next to free. Hard to argue against that and envy is all powerful but if people could suck it up it would certainly have knock on effects for society in the long term and help make it more equal.
Or the ‘they’re all scum and you couldn’t live beside them’ argument.
Personally feel it’s the ghettoisation of certain people that turns them into ‘scum’ and within a generation of living together in estates there’d be no real difference in the vast majority of people.
Does anyone know of estates where this policy was tried properly and worked/didn’t work?
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/the-two-worlds-of-them-and-us-are-created-by-a-housing-policy-or-lack-of-it-1.1846561?page=2[/QUOTE]
Bar the very rich estates here in WA it’s all mixed. What happens over tine though is people move out or move on. It’s hard to know what works here as snobbery is rampant and works it’s way thru all society.
I think if you are receiving a house from the council subsidized or whatever then they are your landlords and upkeep etc should be of a high standard as well as acting socially responsible around the place and then over time nobody cares and communities will grow. However nothing works here cos people don’t mix in a neighborly way at all. They are obsessed with boundaries and petty little things and kids only mix at school or sport, nowhere else. A couple of kids walking down the street here is highly unusual
Personally I can’t understand why anyone cares about how the neighbors paid for their home or who they pay rent to, but clearly it means a lot to a lot of dickheads.
A law or a forcing people to live in places, will never change attitudes as it’s forced. Education from a young age focused of acceptability is the only way.
Mainly for the reasons outlined in the article Fran. We have a terrible record on social inclusion and on addressing the gap between rich and poor in this country.
I don’t think we do compared to almost anywhere else in the world - during celtic tiger we heard the phrase relative poverty - poor in relative terms which is bunkum
nobody in Ireland should be hungry or without a roof over their head - if they are there are usually social/mental health issues at play. Kids should have access to education and it should be free. People need access to good health care.
Beyond that though I don’t think a benefits lifestyle should in any way be favourable or comparable to working in terms of the life you get to lead
[QUOTE=“TheUlteriorMotive, post: 972267, member: 2272”]I don’t think we do compared to almost anywhere else in the world - during celtic tiger we heard the phrase relative poverty - poor in relative terms which is bunkum
nobody in Ireland should be hungry or without a roof over their head - if they are there are usually social/mental health issues at play. Kids should have access to education and it should be free. People need access to good health care.
Beyond that though I don’t think a benefits lifestyle should in any way be favourable or comparable to working in terms of the life you get to lead[/QUOTE]
Here you go with “benefits lifestyle” again, which absolutely no one else mentioned, stop talking shite.
You shouldn’t shout down an argument you don’t agree with.
Your point
“We have a terrible record on social inclusion and on addressing the gap between rich and poor in this country.”
is just wrong - we have a country where gap between rich and poor is actually very small compared to almost anywhere else - that is because of a very generous social welfare system, free education and healthcare
There are lads on the dole funding holidays, drinking, smoking - are they poor or are they “relatively poor”
McVerry is a lobbyist - there are more people working for a homeless charity in Cork than there are homeless people in Cork
[QUOTE=“TheUlteriorMotive, post: 972267, member: 2272”]I don’t think we do compared to almost anywhere else in the world - during celtic tiger we heard the phrase relative poverty - poor in relative terms which is bunkum
nobody in Ireland should be hungry or without a roof over their head - if they are there are usually social/mental health issues at play. Kids should have access to education and it should be free. People need access to good health care.
Beyond that though I don’t think a benefits lifestyle should in any way be favourable or comparable to working in terms of the life you get to lead[/QUOTE]
I don’t think there is a real benefits lifestyle like people like to blow on about. No matter why people in the middle class think getting hand outs and not working is not good for you. People should worry more about themselves. Working and getting rewarded is a far healthier life. But what some people want is to have way more than the disadvantaged and they want to work and have benefits too, which is wrong. You see a lad who goes for 2-3 pints on a Thursday and Friday evening (and no other time cos he can’t afford it) with a little bit left over from disability or the dole or whatever and people would begrudge him. I’ve seen and heard it. It’s disgusting. Yes there are people screwing the system, but they are few and far between and they nearly all still have a below standard existence.
There is no real benefit to benefits you could say.
Anyone who spends all their dole on drink or smoking is in trouble anyway, giving them more or less changes nothing.
[QUOTE=“caoimhaoin, post: 972275, member: 273”]I don’t think there is a real benefits lifestyle like people like to blow on about. No matter why people in the middle class think getting hand outs and not working is not good for you. People should worry more about themselves. Working and getting rewarded is a far healthier life. But what some people want is to have way more than the disadvantaged and they want to work and have benefits too, which is wrong. You see a lad who goes for 2-3 pints on a Thursday and Friday evening (and no other time cos he can’t afford it) with a little bit left over from disability or the dole or whatever and people would begrudge him. I’ve seen and heard it. It’s disgusting. Yes there are people screwing the system, but they are few and far between and they nearly all still have a below standard existence.
There is no real benefit to benefits you could say.[/QUOTE]
System is rigged by politicians to ensure a client culture. A well funded Citizens Information Bureau could remove need for most politicians in this country.
I don’t blame the individual as they make a rational choice. System is rigged against a lot of people who want to work but it suits a large number of people who are happy enough not working.
If you work and lose your job or you get a few days this week and next week and then no work moving into and out of benefits system is really difficult and you can end up with no money for weeks. Likewise cost of childcare means working for many mothers is just not economically sensible.
I would be in favour of a universal benefits payment to everybody and then people can work or not work but they shouldn’t go hungry.
[QUOTE=“TheUlteriorMotive, post: 972281, member: 2272”]System is rigged by politicians to ensure a client culture. A well funded Citizens Information Bureau could remove need for most politicians in this country.
I don’t blame the individual as they make a rational choice. System is rigged against a lot of people who want to work but it suits a large number of people who are happy enough not working.
If you work and lose your job or you get a few days this week and next week and then no work moving into and out of benefits system is really difficult and you can end up with no money for weeks. Likewise cost of childcare means working for many mothers is just not economically sensible.
I would be in favour of a universal benefits payment to everybody and then people can work or not work but they shouldn’t go hungry.[/QUOTE]
We’re discussing slightly different things.
In your last point, is there somewhere you can point to where this works?
[QUOTE=“TheUlteriorMotive, post: 972273, member: 2272”]You shouldn’t shout down an argument you don’t agree with.
Your point
“We have a terrible record on social inclusion and on addressing the gap between rich and poor in this country.”
is just wrong - we have a country where gap between rich and poor is actually very small compared to almost anywhere else - that is because of a very generous social welfare system, free education and healthcare
There are lads on the dole funding holidays, drinking, smoking - are they poor or are they “relatively poor”
McVerry is a lobbyist - there are more people working for a homeless charity in Cork than there are homeless people in Cork[/QUOTE]
You have some sort of bee in your bonnet about having a social welfare system that is like something a British hardcore conservative or US wing nut libertarian might come out with that I don’t think you can back up to any extent. Which is silly as you’re clearly smart.
In Ireland the gap between rich and poor widened during the economic boom. When the crisis hit the weakest in society were worst affected. Our record on provision for the weakest in society from anything to those with mental illness, education for people within special needs, to carers allowances to provision for social housing, to looking after asylum seekers, is a disgrace.
On top of all this, and contrary to what appears to be your world view, countries with the most equal societies, that is the smallest gap between rich and poor, have a higher happiness index, less crime, and importantly are less affected by economic instability and produce more sustainable and long term economic growth.
[QUOTE=“glasagusban, post: 972287, member: 1533”]You have some sort of bee in your bonnet about having a social welfare system that is like something a British hardcore conservative or US wing nut libertarian might come out with that I don’t think you can back up to any extent. Which is silly as you’re clearly smart.
In Ireland the gap between rich and poor widened during the economic boom. When the crisis hit the weakest in society were worst affected. Our record on provision for the weakest in society from anything to those with mental illness, education for people within special needs, to carers allowances to provision for social housing, to looking after asylum seekers, is a disgrace.
On top of all this, and contrary to what appears to be your world view, countries with the most equal societies, that is the smallest gap between rich and poor, have a higher happiness index, less crime, and importantly are less affected by economic instability and produce more sustainable and long term economic growth.[/QUOTE]
My issue with the benefits system is that it creates massive poverty traps for people who do want to work and inter generational social issues and I blame politicians for that as they benefit from a clientele culture.
Teach a man to fish etc.
There is something perverse about a PRSI/social insurance system where what you pay in is uncapped and what you get back is capped. In Germany for example social insurance is linked to your salary and tapers away over a period of time but in doing so acts as a real social insurance to protect people as they lose their jobs. In Sweden it is the same - up to 80%. Norway measures hospital and school performance. Private companies run hospitals in Nordic countries. They provide free school vouchers you can use where you want - likewise childcare is free/heavily subsidised. Money should follow performance.
The definition of poverty, in the uk at least, has become strangely skewed in that it is now a comparison with the average income. This seems utterly fucked to me. Poverty is an absolute, not a relative thing surely?
First of all, Fr. Peter McVerry is an inspiration, a totally selfless individual who has devoted his life to help those less fortunate.
However, allocating 20 per cent of housing output to social or affordable housing, while an admirable policy in reducing the gap between the rich and poor in society, in reality it is a doomed policy IMHO. Allowing disadvantage people to live in more affluent areas is not going to give them automatic access to the opportunities that their better well off neighbours have. In effect you are not equipping them with the tools to improve their situation but getting them to aspire to a greater benefit.
If you want to reduce the divide between the rich and poor in society you must allocate resources to disadvantage areas and set realistic objectives which would empower disadvantage people and equip them with the tools to improve their lifes and those of the next generation. Why not set realistic objectives such as
Increasing participation rates at third level education by x%
Increasing participation rates at training courses by x%
Reducing youth unemployment by x%
Reduce teen pregnancy by x%
[QUOTE=“fenwaypark, post: 972301, member: 276”]First of all, Fr. Peter McVerry is an inspiration, a totally selfish individual who has devoted his life to help those less fortunate.
However, allocating 20 per cent of housing output to social or affordable housing, while an admirable policy in reducing the gap between the rich and poor in society, in reality it is a doomed policy IMHO. Allowing disadvantage people to live in more affluent areas is not going to give them automatic access to the opportunities that their better well off neighbours have. In effect you are not equipping them with the tools to improve their situation but getting them to aspire to a greater benefit.
If you want to reduce the divide between the rich and poor in society you must allocate resources to disadvantage areas and set realistic objectives which would empower disadvantage people and equip them with the tools to improve their lifes and those of the next generation. Why not set realistic objectives such as
Increasing participation rates at third level education by x%
Increasing participation rates at training courses by x%
Reducing youth unemployment by x%
Reduce teen pregnancy by x%[/QUOTE]
Why not start with the housing though? Stick to the 20 pc rule and move from there. It has to be better than lumping all the social housing together in sprawling estates. That obviously hasn’t worked anywhere and actually causes worse problems in places like France and Britain. There’s serious ghettoisation going on in the likes of Dublin 15 that could come back to haunt us down the line.
Has this 20 pc thing been brought in and stuck to anywhere in Ireland or even abroad?
Examples of the first? You’ve touched on something in the second, but I think your reasoning for it is miles off. I’m not sure about the clientele culture, it’s a not the main problem I think.
[QUOTE=“TheUlteriorMotive, post: 972298, member: 2272”]
There is something perverse about a PRSI/social insurance system where what you pay in is uncapped and what you get back is capped.[/QUOTE]
No there isn’t.
[QUOTE=“TheUlteriorMotive, post: 972298, member: 2272”]
Money should follow performance.[/QUOTE]
You absolutely cannot use that reasoning in every walk of life and often not for provision of public services.
[QUOTE=“Tabby, post: 972306, member: 2142”]Why not start with the housing though? Stick to the 20 pc rule and move from there. It has to be better than lumping all the social housing together in sprawling estates. That obviously hasn’t worked anywhere and actually causes worse problems in places like France and Britain. There’s serious ghettoisation going on in the likes of Dublin 15 that could come back to haunt us down the line.
Has this 20 pc thing been brought in and stuck to anywhere in Ireland or even abroad?[/QUOTE]
Taken 20% of disadvantage people and moving them to an affluent area will make no substantive change to an affluent area. The area where the 20% moved from will still be disadvantaged, and its the latter that policy needs to address and not the former.