On Newsnight last night, I was in a discussion that included the minister, Yvette Cooper (the only one who got TV make-up), Professor John Hills (who wrote yesterday's report on council housing), Lynsey Hanley (author)and Shaun Bailey (excuse me if I have mispelled his surname).
There was a moment to relish when Yvette Cooper was talking earnestly about the importance of mixing up the rich and poor. It all sounded very admirable and important. The interviewer, Emily, was taking it in very seriously and not challenging her in the least. Then Shaun Bailey, who lives on an estate, said it would make no difference. You could put the rich and the poor next to each other but they would still be living "in different worlds".
It is probably true that concentrating those with major problems in one housing estate does tend to compound these problems. But it is also true, as Mr Bailey said, that you can have rich and poor very close together without talking to each other for decades. I live in a street with a council estate. I know of no interaction between the rich and the poor on this street over many years. The only exception is via the porter of a luxury block of flats who speaks easily to everyone and - in his amiable way - ticks off council children if they deal in drugs in the estate garden or otherwise misbehave.
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Housing
Comments (2)
TrackBack (0)
Comments
Yvette Cooper (the only one who got TV make-up)Let's face it, she'd need make-up for the radio.
Posted by: Ian Bennett at February 22, 2007 10:11 AM
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2007/02/mixing_rich_and.php on line 293
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Bad arguments. in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2007/02/mixing_rich_and.php on line 293
Enforcing the mix is almost communism.
Right now developers in certain places MUST set aside some units for "social housing" which could mean council tenants implanted in a block that the owner and the residents have little or no control over. That already exists and I find that outrageous as it is.
This new plan is further eroding the right of people. It reminds me of the scene in "Dr Zhivago" when the Dr comes home to find his house possessed by the local Soviet "authorities" and his family shoved into a room.
Slums develop because of the people in them, not the location. Notting Hill became a slum when the residents changed, not because the housing or layout, geography. It reversed when the pepole living there changed.
Social housing mobility is not caused by the concept of "estates" but by the very nature of Council provided housing tied to residency and myriad other rules imposed by what is in effect a monopoly supplier (almost always a bad thing).
The fix is not to spread people about, it is to see why people are in social housing, but alas, dogma gets in their way and they cannot see that they have created a Welfare hammock, not a safety net - a safety net implies catching those falling, a hammock is what a net becomes when people do not fall but are able to lie there. People are born into the safety net, THIS is why people are not moving.
The ultimate goal of this "initiative" by the government is to have more and more control over what people do and to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
Posted by: Roger Thornhill at February 22, 2007 10:07 AM