I was up at Stormont yesterday. It’s an imposing edifice. That big mile-long run-up, past Carson’s finger-curling statue, and then the low-shouldered assertion of the building itself. I’ve seen the famous Milan Railway Station, built by Mussolini. It’s big and brutal, reflecting the burly menace that was fascism. The Stormont Parliament building is somewhat slimmer but the architectural message is the same: we’re in charge and don’t you forget it.
I was there for a meeting of the Participation and the Practice of Rights (PPR) campaign “Equality Can’t Wait”. The particular aspect of equality that was being addressed was the equality – no, sorry, inequality – of housing in North Belfast. There were at least three representatives of Sinn Féin in Stormont’s Long Hall, at least two representatives of the SDLP and at least one representative of the Alliance Party. Each of those parties spoke, expressing their solidarity with the people of North Belfast who have had to and continue to endure the kind of housing accommodation that was more common in the 1950s. Damp causing ceiling plaster to crumble, inadequate heating, anti-social elements raising hell with impunity. All of the conditions you or I would do just about anything to avoid. People who’ve had to endure these conditions – the residents themselves – described the difficulties they’ve had and accompanying slides provided proof that what they said was true.
But haven’t we a Housing Minister now? Hasn’t the housing problem, at the heart of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, been resolved? Uh-uh. When one resident approached the Housing Minister, Nelson McCausland, she was told in effect that half-a-loaf was better than no bread, and to concentrate on the half of the housing loaf that she had and not whinge about the half she hadn’t.
Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance MLAs made it clear that their party supported the residents forced into a living nightmare and would work with them to change it. So what’s the problem? Where’s the hold-up?
Well, the dogs that didn’t bark might tell you the answer. There were no representatives of any unionist parties present yesterday. What keeps unionist politicians away is the fact that the overwhelming number of people in North Belfast who are in urgent need of social housing are Catholic. If the Housing Minister was to react to housing need, as many houses as possible would be erected and as quickly as possible. And there are plenty of places where it could be done, like the Girdwood barracks site. But faced with the prospect of having a bigger Catholic population living in North Belfast, unionist politicians have performed a neat trick. With one flick of of the wrist, they’ve transformed housing need into shared housing. So although the figures, however massaged, show that the overwhelming number of people in need of proper social housing are Catholic, they’re not going to be at the top of the list for having their needs met. Why? Because the DUP has declared its commitment to shared housing. In other words, under the flag of let’s-have-equality, any social housing must be awarded on a 50-50 basis to Catholics and Protestants. Need must go to the back of the queue.
Why would unionist politicians -for example, a fine man like Housing Minister Nelson McCausland – act in this way? Well two reasons really. One is that were the bulging Catholic population in North Belfast to have their housing needs met, it could have electoral repercussions.Not to put too fine a tooth on it, Gerry Kelly could pass out Nigel Dodds in the next Westminster election. It may happen anyway, but the DUP is going to make sure they don’t provide Kelly with a housing leg-up, so to say.
Shocking, right? Well try this second reason for shocking. Social housing for those in need is being held back for another reason: marching. If you build new houses for Catholics in, for example, the Hillview Business Park site or in Duncairn Gardens or in the Frederick Street area, that could mean more pesky Catholics living there and that might affect the traditional marching routes of the Loyal Orders. Yes,Virginia, you heard me. To keep things nice for the Men Who March, the needs of families for a decent place to live are being frustrated.
Shouldn’t we be shouting about this from the roof-tops? (Assuming you’re lucky enough to have a roof-top to stand on.) We certainly should. PPR are putting as much pressure as possible on the Stormont politicians. Senior members of Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party have all stated publicly their commitment to righting this fundamental injustice. The PPR campaign is titled “Equality Can’t Wait”. Well, I beg to differ. I think equality should wait for, um, four months. That’ll take us, with the help of God, past most of the marching season. Then if unionist politicians haven’t abandoned the fig leaf of ‘shared housing’ and pulled on the trousers of housing need, they should be shamed into it by an intense and concerted campaign that tells the world why progress is being blocked. No, Virginia, not because of a dedication to shared housing. Because marching bands and unionist votes must be protected.
Dr C
An interesting (and tragic if correct) post BUT you let reduce the gravity of the topic with this bit:
“The Stormont Parliament building is somewhat slimmer but the architectural message is the same: we’re in charge and don’t you forget it. ”
Who were they aiming this at? At the time of it’s construction the area within a five mile radius must have been overwhelmingly Protestant/unionist.
So I don’t swallow that.
What I would swallow is:
“Must show off to our cousins and landed gentry mates across the water”
or
“We’re loaded, we need a parliament and have to employ as many people as possible (post WWI and then depression), let’s chip in and build a massive place”
or
“They’ve got nice government buildings in Dublin and London, we’d better have one too”
I’m no fan of the Orange junta, but really Dr C, a but of perspective please.
(WRT to the article, truly shameful, and the DUP wonder why Catholics won’t vote for them?)
Here’s my perspective
There could be many reasons why Unionist politicians decided to build an enormous, imposing building on the hill back in the late 20’s. It does not need to be only 1 reason. I would swallow every reason you give and also Jude’s opinion of ‘we are in charge and don’t you forget it’.
You make a good point about the vast majority of residents within a five mile radius of the imposing building being Protestant/Unionist but I live 10 miles from Stormont in an area where the vast majority have been Catholic/nationalist for a very long time and I can see Stormont clearly from the back bedroom window.
Also I’m quite sure that many photographs of this unnecessarily enormous building appeared in newspapers across Northern Ireland for all to ‘marvel’ at.
Here is a quote from a Unionist politician of the time: “When I made that declaration last ‘twelfth’ I did so after careful consideration. What I said was justified. I recommended people not to employ Roman Catholics, who were 99 per cent disloyal.”
Sir Basil Brooke, Unionist Party, then Minister of Agriculture, later Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, 19 March 1934.
That tells me they may well have built the imposing building to remind the ‘fenians’ who is in charge.
But alas here we are talking about the 30’s and not 2014. (Basil would be having kittens if he read this) all because Jude made a comment about the building of Stormont in the late 20’s which was not immediately relevant to the topic of possible housing discrimination which was the thrust of his article.
It is all Jude’s fault. Jude is a dreadful man. I would not have his sort about me. (only joking Jude – you understand satire)
Jude try reading the house executive 2013 report and that should set your mind at ease might even stop you making uninformed comments?
Am Ghobsmacht , re: Stormont architecture, I agree with each of your points, (showing Belfast was ‘no mean city’, etc.) but I reckon they only supplement Jude’s point, they don’t necessarily contradict it.
On the substantive Housing issue, this is the kind of thing where SF, and the media, need to up their game.
Hey Jude, Thought I was back in Derry of the fifties. How did we solve the housing situation way back then? I recently attended the funeral of a woman who with her husband and children and other homeless families had occupied the Guildhall in 1969. Drastic situations call for drastic measures.
I see on the poster in the photo that almost 2/5 people have damp problems. dampness means mold, mildew and fungus. All of these pose serious short and long term medical problems. i.e. A house gets flooded, is dried out and soon after the walls go black. Elderly and children are especially at risk . Politics, race and creeds aside, all parties should be vigorously promoting clean and dry housing for everyone.
As a faithful reader of this blog, surely all the posters can agree on the need for housing improvements, whatever one’s beleifs
The evidence of housing need is a stark reminder of the lack of progress on this issue since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. Can we honestly state that current policies promote equality? The number of security walls, barriers and cameras in situ, ongoing racist attacks and policies on sexual orientation suggest that we have a long way to go in the development of a shared and equal future.
The Unionists are not so happy with 50/50 when it comes to recruits for the PSNI. Funny that…….
I think you will find that the ministers preference for allocating social housing on 50/50 basis rather than on real social need is only one method that he intends using to try and stymie the onward march of equality!
Breaking the Housing Executive up might prove another efficient way of circumventing these bothersome equality thresholds!
On the bright side look how much progress we have made in housing provision in 3 and a half odd thousand years since the beginning of the world!
All Ministers should sign a form saying they will treat all citizens equally and will not have any dealings with sectarian or racist political/religious organisations, particularly ones that advocate discrimination against a `certain` section of society. Of course that means British ministers as well and…oh wait, that would mean an end to the laws against Papists being King of the Castle. So THAT`S why most Catholics are Republican and feel zilch for the British state! I wondered why they hadn`t come over to the Unionist way of thinking after hundreds of years.
Exactly. This ties back in with the notion of the OO hiding in plain sight within the ranks of the DUP. What do you reckon the chances are of getting the Unionists to sign up to to such an agreement? Ulster will forever say ‘no’.