A Visit to the Purple House

Today, I’ve been to visit the Purple House, a women’s centre in Hull.

I was incredibly impressed by the range of services they offer to women. Their philosophy is to help any woman that comes through the door, however  big or small her problem. So although much of their work is related to helping women suffering from domestic abuse, they also help people with training, benefits, housing, sorting out bills, and so on. They provide a huge amount of support from a relatively small building.

The women I have met who volunteer or access services there have told me how purple house has increased their confidence. It was great to hear stories of people who were in desperate need of help, who have confronted their problems, built their confidence, found work, and now volunteer to help others.

And the purple house is impressive in its drive to become self-sufficient in its funding. They have so many fundraising projects on the go. One project provides housing for women and children in crisis and escaping domestic violence, from a stock owned or managed by the women’s centre and which therefore provides a funding stream too. And on this note, if you need an ethical investment opportunity that also does some good, then maybe this is for you!?

More information can be found at www.purplehouse.co.uk

Not all 24 year olds are the same

Cameron’s suggestion today that housing benefit should be stopped for everyone under 25 is an example of poor policy, based on generalisations. It appears to be based on a stereotype of how people live, or should live, i.e. that if you’re under 25 you can live with your parents. Whilst it may make sense for some people, there are so many people for whom this would not work. For example, what about if you’re currently entitled to housing benefit due to being in low paid work, but not living anywhere near your family; what if you don’t have any family, or were brought up in the care system; what if your parents have decided to live abroad but you don’t want to; what if neither parent has enough room in their house, and so on....

One of the reasons I came into politics initially was a frustration with a system that fitted people into boxes, and failed to see people as individuals. For me, a policy of refusing housing benefit to anyone under 25 would do just this.

I became frustrated with policy ‘boxes’ when I was 28, and applying to do an MA. Many of the grant application forms asked me how much money my parents earned. I was not impressed with the question. I didn’t know how much my parents earned, nor did I want to know. It was none of my business, and certainly not the business of the people asking the question. It felt as though I didn’t fit the ‘box’ of someone applying for funding straight from university, and so was being ruled out on that basis.

I’ve noticed that much of the comment on the housing benefit story so far has referred to families, children, married couples, etc. But many people don’t fit into that ‘box’. There seems to be an assumption that people will live at home until they get married. If policy is made based on stereotypes from the 1950’s it will only restrict young people, discourage them from taking risks and innovating, trying new things and creating their own lives independent of their parents.

Policy needs to be made in a way that appreciates everyone’s different circumstances. Something that boxes a whole group of people together like these housing benefit proposals, and treats them all the same, is only going to lead to weak policy with unintended consequences.

Supporting business in Hull

Last week was business week in Hull, and I really enjoyed attending some of the events to support local business. It is one of the biggest events like this in the country, and it was great to see so many people involved in business wanting to invest in the region, and take advantage of some of the great opportunities in our area.

Sometimes it’s too easy for business to be labelled as the ‘bad’ guy, interested only in profit. But there was plenty of evidence over business week of businesses willing, and in fact eager, to give back to their local communities. Local businesses need our support. They are, after all, where many local jobs come from, and as such a core part of what we need to improve the local area.

There was much talk, of course, about the opportunities linked to the development of the wind farm industry in this area. It was good to hear from people already making the most of these opportunities, and those planning to be part of the supply chain. There was also positive talk about what will happen once the wind farms have been built, and the longer term opportunities such as maintenance.

The big challenge, of course, is whether Hull manages to make the most of the opportunities out there. There is a once in a lifetime opportunity with the investment of Siemens, and it is essential everyone involved does all they can to ensure we make the most of it.

So it was good to hear hopeful messages from local businesses keen to make the most of the opportunities out there. They deserve our support for all their hard work, which ultimately benefits us all.

Invictus

Last night I watched invictus- the film about Nelson Mandela and the rugby world cup in South Africa.

It’s a good film to put things in perspective. At times politics in the UK can seem difficult and conflictual, but the situation is nothing compared to the problems faced in South Africa working to end apartheid.

A theme that came out prominently in the film is the desire to move past history and to reconcile; to act in the interests of the future of the country, not based on hurt from the past. Probably something we would all do well to remember, and not just in the field of politics. Not an easy thing to do nonetheless. We probably all have a lot to learn from countries that have successfully moved on from situations of internal violent conflict.

So what is the right age?

This week there’s been much discussion of Miriam O’Reilly’s successful age discrimination case against the BBC. I find these sorts of cases really interesting. Not only is there the question of whether age discrimination is more common for women, but there’s also the question of what age is the ‘right’ age?

Ultimately, I suppose it depends on the field you are working in as to whether people want older or younger people. But there is a danger that the ‘right’ age becomes so narrow that there are only a few years left.

I remember in the first year as a councillor, going to a meeting with my 2 ward colleagues (who are both younger than me, and also female). The secretary of the person we were going to see came down to fetch ‘councillors Bush, Bell and Thomas’. We watched her look around for some time before she worked out that 3 young-looking women sat together were actually the councillors. I don’t blame her for this. We do break the stereotypes for councillors.

But it is not uncommon for some people to not be able to look past somebody’s age, and to take them less seriously if they are young. And it is not only older people that do that. When I began teaching at university, it was not uncommon for new teachers to try and look older than they were- the blokes to grow a beard, or the women to wear high heels and dress more smartly than they normally would. They wanted the students to take them seriously.

I am now 36, and I still often get referred to as young (not always disparagingly). I note that Miriam O’Reilly is 53. So I’m guessing the ‘right’ age is when you’re in your 40s? This is clearly wrong, and I am glad we have a legal process to stop injustices happening. But this needs to be a last resort. Its use demonstrates that something has gone wrong.

What we really need is culture change, not legal cases. This means all of us challenging each other and ourselves when we think differently about someone based on their age (or gender, race, sexual orientation etc) and not on their abilities and so on.

Of course, part of the problem here is that politics is one of the worst arenas and needs a culture change itself. The percentage of women in top positions in political parties is woefully low. This has to be partly a culture problem, as I am sure there are plenty of women who want to, and are capable of, fulfilling those roles.

Samira Ahmed commented that the discussion programmes she had seen discussing this topic were both chaired by older men (as has been all the coverage I’ve seen). So I guess there’s still a long way to go on the culture thing.

Easier charitable giving

I’m still objecting to the term ‘big society’, but some of the ideas coming out under its rubric are good. The Independent is reporting on the government’s ideas to encourage more people to give to charity. Some of these ideas seem good (eg being able to round up transactions on debit cards and give the change to charity; allowing charities to use government buildings), even though some seem a little pointless (eg setting up a new charity shopping search engine- you can search the web and give to charity already), but the principle of trying to make it more convenient to give to charity is a good idea.

In the summer Nick Hurd, minister for civil society, said that he gives 1% of his income to charity, and wants to encourage others to do the same. In the spirit of ‘charity’ I won’t argue with the exact percentage he’s giving, but it’s nice to hear some positive ideas.

I realise not everyone will be sympathetic to this cause. Some will argue this is an agenda to get charities to do the work the state should be doing. Let me make it clear, I believe that the state has serious obligations when it comes to protecting the vulnerable and I do not think that somehow transferring this responsibility to charities and relying on voluntary donations is a viable option. But charities also play an incredibly important role, filling gaps that the state cannot fill, or adding to services the state already provides.

Giving is important, and something that we should all value more highly. Whilst I don’t want a government that interferes in when and how I give to charity, the aim of making it easier is a positive one. At Christmas-time we all know that it’s a pleasure to give presents as well as receive them. This can apply to giving to charity too- it’s a fulfilling experience to give money or time to a good cause (time is equally valuable and all too easy to forget about), and helps us to put life in perspective.

Some thoughts on student protests

I’ve been listening with interest this week to lots of people commenting about the student protests. Several people have been comparing them to protests in ‘their day’. Most people seem pleased that there is increased student activism, and have a sense that, in general, students are less politically engaged than they used to be.

People have been discussing previous student sit-ins, protests, occupying buildings and so on. I understand that in Hull University a common tactic was to occupy the boiler house so that the university had to close down. Some people are really positive about these tactics, others were more annoyed that other people’s actions meant that their education was disrupted.

I welcome student activism, and think that comments that students are less political now are probably over-exaggerated. Students and the campaign against higher fees need to think carefully about what they are doing and what their strategy is. There are rumours of plans for direct action. This may work well for the campaign, but it needs to be carefully thought through.

Consideration needs to be given to tactics. A campaign needs to leave room for the other side to change its position and actually do what the campaigners want. Some forms of protest can be so confrontational that they do not leave room for change and only solidify existing positions.

Violence is also a key factor of course. One of the problems with any protest is that it will attract violence by some. Keeping your own campaigners completely non-violent needs incredible discipline, and keeping others out who want to use violence is likely to be impossible. The challenge for any campaign is to keep violence to a minimum, and then have a strategy to allow the message to come through despite the inevitable media attention on the violence at the edges. Ultimately, the protestors need people watching to blame the other side for the problems being highlighted, not to blame the protestors for the trouble being caused. This is not an easy balance to achieve, and needs a well thought-out strategy.